Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Gaza

Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Jeremy Corbyn: What assistance his Department is providing to the people of Gaza.

Douglas Alexander: The Government and I are extremely concerned about the situation in Gaza and we are monitoring it closely. Gazans scrambling over the Rafah border last week secured essential supplies, but the underlying humanitarian situation is still dire. Although we understand Israel's security concerns, we do not support the decision to close Gaza's crossings. The Foreign Secretary and I have called on Israel to open them and to lift immediately all restrictions on humanitarian supplies. So far this financial year, the UK Government have given more than £11 million in humanitarian assistance to Gaza and the west bank through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the temporary international mechanism. The majority of that money went to Gaza.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's answer. Does he agree that it is completely unacceptable for the Israelis to stop goods coming in, in particular for the Umm al-Nasser project? That project is needed to drain a lake to prevent potential flooding for 10,000 people in Gaza, but the Israelis are blocking the supplies that are coming in for that. The Israelis made a commitment to the special envoy to the middle east that they would honour the project, but what is the point of having a special envoy and getting him to do deals with the Israeli Government if they will not deliver—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a supplementary question, not making a speech.

Douglas Alexander: I have had the opportunity to discuss with the Quartet's envoy the quick impact projects, including the project in Gaza. He is determined to continue his work to ensure that those projects are taken forward. Ordinary Palestinians should not suffer because of the actions of extremists, and any response by the Israeli Government to the rocket attacks by militants should be in accordance with international law. We are therefore keen not only that humanitarian supplies should be able to enter Gaza but that we have the kind of economic progress that is necessary to support the peace and reconciliation process in the middle east that we all want to see.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that Israel's collective punishment of the people of Gaza is probably illegal under international law and the fourth Geneva protocol? The closure of the Erez crossing means that basic humanitarian medical supplies and all food supplies cannot get through to Gaza. Even a humanitarian convoy put together by Israeli human rights organisations has been blocked at the Erez crossing. Will the Secretary of State put immediate pressure on Israel to open the crossing, allow medical and food aid to get through and allow the humanitarian supplies to arrive quickly? Israel's refusal to do that means that the anger and poverty of the people of Gaza simply gets worse and worse.

Douglas Alexander: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I travelled to the Palestinian Authority's territory in December and took the opportunity to meet Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister who is responsible in the Israeli Government for the policies about the crossings. I impressed on him the long-standing position of the British Government that, notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns of the people of Israel, we believe that the crossing should be open. We recognise that there are deficiencies in the medical supplies available in Gaza and continuing requirements for fuel for generators, not least for the hospitals. That is why I and the Foreign Secretary have made repeated pleas to the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations and ensure that the crossings are open for humanitarian supplies.

Gary Streeter: I welcome the pressure that the British Government are putting on the Israeli Government to reopen the crossings and the humanitarian support that we are giving through the non-governmental organisations in Gaza. However, what steps and systems has the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that British taxpayers' money is not being diverted in Gaza to be used to create rockets to be fired into Israel?

Douglas Alexander: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. There are clearly established mechanisms, principally through the UN and the ICRC, to provide support. We are providing about £100 million through UNRWA to the Palestinian territories over a period of five years. However, in addition to those assurances, we continue to speak to the Palestinian Authority, principally to President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and to impress on them the importance of taking forward the work in the Palestinian community to find a way forward, not least in relation to Gaza.

Gerald Kaufman: While the Government's actions on this matter are impeccable and the efforts of Tony Blair are wholly admirable, is it not a fact that only international action can bring to an end the humanitarian disaster caused by collective punishment imposed by the gang of amoral thugs who comprise the Israeli Government and violate not only international law but the historic Jewish conscience?

Douglas Alexander: I know of the long-standing concern about and the interest in the middle east with which my right hon. Friend speaks. The British Government have been unequivocal in stating that Israel should abide by its commitment under the fourth Geneva convention. We recognise the legitimate security concerns of the people of Israel, but it is vital that the Israeli Government act in a way that is consistent with their obligations under international law.
	My right hon. Friend made another substantial point about international action, and I welcome the steps taken by the Quartet's special representative and the recent visit to the region by President Bush of the US. The whole international community should speak with one voice to impress on both the Israelis and Palestinians the urgency of finding a way forward in the middle east.

Michael Moore: We are appalled by the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, but does the Secretary of State agree that we have reached an extraordinary state of affairs when a UN representative can say:
	"Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the...acquiescence...of the international community"?
	We all condemn the rocket attacks on Israel, but does the Secretary of State think that the scale of the Israeli response is disproportionate?

Douglas Alexander: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench post as Liberal Democrat spokesman on international development. We are extremely concerned by the humanitarian situation. I have seen the reports to which he has referred and which were written by an UNRWA representative. Since July 2007, when the closure regime was tightened, we have made active diplomatic efforts to ensure that the humanitarian situation has eased. In December, I took the opportunity to discuss the Israeli Government's defence posture and humanitarian obligations with Ehud Barak. As recently as last weekend, my colleague the Foreign Secretary raised those matters directly with Minister Livni, the Israeli Government's foreign affairs spokesman.

David Winnick: At least no one in the House of Commons is trying to defend the Israeli Government's inexcusable actions. Cannot the western powers—certainly this country, and I would hope the US—be much firmer with Israel and say that its actions cause dismay throughout the civilised world? How would Israeli citizens like to be subject to what the citizens of Gaza are subjected to by Israeli occupation?

Douglas Alexander: As I said, we have been unequivocal in urging the Israeli Government to recognise their humanitarian obligations in Gaza. We have also been unequivocal in our support for the Palestinian Authority's efforts over recent months to reform the system of governance in the west bank and to take the peace process forward. Ultimately, both the Palestinians and the people of Israel have legitimate security concerns, but that is no reason why humanitarian supplies should not reach Gaza, nor why rockets should be fired on the Israeli population. It is imperative that all sides recognise their responsibilities, and it is essential that the international community communicates that with one voice.

Afghanistan

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to discuss aid to Afghanistan with his EU counterparts.

Douglas Alexander: I next anticipate holding comprehensive discussions on aid to Afghanistan with my European counterparts at a conference on Afghanistan to be hosted by France this summer. The conference will take stock of achievements to date and donors will make pledges of support to the Afghan national development strategy, the Government of Afghanistan's own five-year strategy for reconstruction and development that is due to be finalised in March.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but does he agree that it is most unfortunate that President Karzai first criticised British intervention in Helmand province and then vetoed Lord Ashdown's appointment as UN special representative? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure better co-ordination of the aid efforts undertaken by his Department and the hundreds of other aid agencies in Afghanistan?

Douglas Alexander: First, I am sorry that Lord Ashdown has felt obliged to withdraw his candidacy for the post of UN special representative, as he would have served with great distinction and ability in that role. Before he withdrew his candidacy, I had an opportunity to discuss these matters with President Karzai at the end of last week. Although the question of who should be the UN special representative should be discussed with the Afghan Government, the judgment ultimately rests with the UN Secretary-General, with whom I have also therefore taken the opportunity to speak. It is right to recognise the urgency of stronger co-ordination within the donor community, but ultimately the initiative rests with the Secretary-General of the UN.

Chris Ruane: What role does my right hon. Friend think that specific and targeted EU and UK aid can play in reducing Afghan farmers' reliance on growing cocaine and poppies, and in reducing the level of violence in the country?

Douglas Alexander: Inevitably and appropriately, because British troops are serving with such distinction in Helmand, much of the coverage of Afghanistan in British newspapers focuses exclusively on the counter-insurgency campaign. It is right to recognise that there has been a significant uplift in poppy production in Helmand but, at the same time, there has been a significant increase in the number of poppy-free provinces in Afghanistan. That speaks to the fact that the key to eradicating opium, which will be a long-term endeavour, is making the environment secure and ensuring the rule of law. That is why we stand four-square behind the Afghan Government in their efforts to find a way forward, not simply in the areas affected by the insurgency but more broadly across Afghanistan.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the recent criticisms voiced by President Karzai and other members of the Afghan Government might have something to do with impending elections? Figures suggesting that UK aid is three times more efficient than American aid reinforce the need to co-ordinate aid and its impact on the ground. Will the Secretary of State use his offices within the international community to engage with other partners to ensure local impact and an understanding by the people of Afghanistan that there is real benefit in partnership, and that a long-term commitment has been made?

Douglas Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with obvious authority as Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, which recently visited Afghanistan. I assure him, as I assured the Committee, that we are engaging actively with our American partners. When I visited Afghanistan, I met the American ambassador, and I am in regular contact with Henrietta Fore of the United States Agency for International Development. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that discussions with the Americans are going on at every level about how we can ensure maximum impact for international development assistance to Afghanistan.

Ann McKechin: In his discussions with his European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend ensure that much greater priority is given to reforming the justice system in Afghanistan? Women there are still arrested and routinely jailed for years simply for running away from home or choosing not to marry the man their families have chosen for them. I ask that the issue of gender be given much higher priority as well.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and expertise on these matters. The Americans have led on issues relating to the Ministry of Interior while, within the European Union, our German colleagues have done much on police reform. An active dialogue is taking place in the international community about how best we can support the Afghan Government's efforts. I am encouraged by the recognition at senior levels in that Government of the importance of both the issues identified by my hon. Friend.

Mark Lancaster: During my service in Afghanistan, I experienced at first hand the challenges of trying to deliver meaningful development on the ground. The keys to success, as highlighted by the Afghanistan compact, are capacity building, co-ordination and a bottom-up approach through the production of community development plans. Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the signing of the compact, yet the Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development remains the only vaguely functioning Department in the provinces and only a tiny percentage of communities have produced meaningful plans. Why has so little progress been made, and what specific action does the Secretary of State intend to take to address the situation?

Douglas Alexander: I do not share the universally negative view suggested by the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman. Of course there is a long way to go and a great deal of work to be done in terms of building the capacity of the Ministries, as I just acknowledged in the case of the Ministry of Interior. On the other hand, real progress is being made. Back in 2001, 900,000 boys were in education in Afghanistan; there are now more than 5 million children in education, and more than 2 million of them girls. More than 9,000 km of roads have been improved since 2001. One force commander told me when I visited Afghanistan that where the roads end, the Taliban begin. Both physical work and social and economic development are under way, but I fully recognise that there is still a long way to go.

Palestine

Louise Ellman: What steps he has taken to ensure that aid allocated to Palestinians is spent on the purposes for which it is intended.

Shahid Malik: Aid to the occupied Palestinian territories is subject to the highest possible level of scrutiny. Projects are run by internationally respected organisations, with rigorous checks on each payment and independent auditing. UK aid is spent on helping Palestinians pay for their doctors and teachers, maintain water and electricity supplies and support refugees. In addition, the Department for International Development is supporting programmes to tackle corruption and improve the management of public funds.

Louise Ellman: But on 29 December a lorry was found to be taking 6.5 tonnes of bomb-making potassium nitrate into Gaza, disguised in a bag labelled "EU sugar". Again on 14 January a lorry was found to be taking bomb-making equipment into Gaza disguised as aid. In view of that, does my hon. Friend not think that more urgent attention should be given to ensuring that only humanitarian aid goes into Gaza, so that the very genuine needs of the people are met?

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the need for constant vigilance where aid is concerned, but it is important to put the matter in context and in perspective. The Israeli authorities accept that the bags had nothing to do with EU projects and were fraudulent. EU aid was thus not misused. Such opportunistic frauds are an attempt to undermine the peace process. There is also the problem of weapons smuggled through tunnels, and I take her point about vigilance. We are clear that the Palestinian Authority are committed to the middle east peace process and to tackling extremism and terrorism.

Stephen Crabb: What assurances can the Minister give that, contrary to recent reports, no British aid whatever is being used to fund extremist educational materials in the Palestinian territories that indoctrinate children and young people in Palestine with the belief that martyrdom or the murder of apostates is a legitimate political or religious aim?

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue, which has been raised a number of times over the past 10 years or so. I can categorically say that UK aid does not fund textbooks or the Education Ministry. The allegations relate to textbooks that were used pre-1994. Since 2002 the Palestinian Authority have had a new national curriculum that is hatred and violence free. Importantly, that has been confirmed by both the European Commission and an Israeli civil society organisation that was commissioned by the US. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which we support, supports education in the occupied Palestinian territories and produces textbooks, but they are UN approved and endorsed and are free from extremism and violence.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend mentioned UNRWA. Is he aware that John Ging, the UNRWA director of operations in Gaza, came to Parliament in the autumn? Was he not right when he said that the problem with Israel's action is that it
	"presupposes that the civilian population in Gaza are either themselves responsible for, or somehow more capable of, stopping the rocket fire than the powerful military of the occupying power"?
	Is not the collective punishment being imposed by Israel unjustified? What are the Government doing to ensure that the United Nations passes an appropriate resolution to bring the situation in Gaza to an end, or at least to express much firmer international disapproval of it?

Shahid Malik: We constantly call on all sides in the dispute and conflict to adhere to international law and to respect human rights. Israeli security and justice for the Palestinians will not be achieved by cutting off fuel, closing crossings, or firing rockets. That is a recipe for continued misery on all sides.

Mark Harper: Given the nature of the Hamas regime in Gaza, can the Minister explain to the House whether the controls on aid going to Gaza are tighter than the controls on British aid going to the west bank?

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman will know that aid to the Palestinian Authority was suspended following the establishment of the Hamas Government in March 2006. All aid to Gaza goes via the temporary international mechanism and is checked and audited by the World Bank or the European Community. Payments for salary allowances are checked against five different internationally recognised terrorist lists. UNRWA also works in Gaza and the budget is approved by the United Nations General Assembly, which has a strong audit unit. Donors such as the UK receive regular financial reports. We are as assured as we can be under the circumstances that aid is going to the areas where it needs to go.

HIV/AIDS

Sally Keeble: Whether his Department's strategy for tackling HIV/AIDS in developing countries includes measures to support children orphaned, or made vulnerable, by that condition.

Gillian Merron: Children, including those orphaned or made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS, are at the heart of the UK's strategy for tackling the epidemic and its effect in the developing world. We are committed to spending £150 million to help meet their needs over the three years to 2008.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position, which I am sure she will find rewarding. It is a very important role. Is she aware that the non-governmental organisations that work on these issues particularly want to see the UK devote 10 per cent. of its funding stream on HIV/AIDS to support for orphans and vulnerable children? Furthermore, they want Government systems to improve to make sure that the aid gets to the orphans. What assurances can she give those NGOs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a supplementary question.

Gillian Merron: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of welcome. She is a tireless campaigner on this issue; just last week, she met my predecessor to discuss it. I assure the House that following the public consultation on the UK's strategy for tackling HIV/AIDS in the developing world, we will continue to work and build on what works best so that the needs and rights of orphans and vulnerable children remain absolutely central as we move forward to tackle the issue.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Lady, whom we congratulate on her promotion, look carefully at the valuable report produced by Business Action for Africa, and note the enormous importance of business and the private sector in the fight against HIV/AIDS—a recognition that has not always been part of the Minister's Department's DNA?

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my post and look forward to working with him and his team. I certainly agree about the importance of economic development and growth in combating HIV/AIDS and I look forward to considering the report to which he refers.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party and I have been pressing for clear, interim targets for scaling up access to HIV prevention and treatment. Some 93 countries have now set such targets and 60 have developed national action plans. Does the Minister accept that, without those targets, we will miss the goal of universal access by 2010? Will she ensure that her Department encourages all developing countries to set such targets and develop those plans?

Gillian Merron: I assure the House that we lead the world towards achieving universal access to comprehensive prevention programmes, treatment, care and support by 2010. We remain firmly committed to that goal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the UK has made an unprecedented, long-term commitment of £1 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Indeed, in wanting to strengthen health care systems across the world, our Prime Minister launched the international health partnership initiative in September last year to improve the co-ordination of donors working on health and to support countries to develop better health care systems.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend will know that accessing health care sometimes depends on being literate. In many developing countries, the level of literacy is incredibly low. In the measures that she is proposing, will my hon. Friend ensure that, as well as the provision of registered sister nurses, there is some incentive to improve literacy in those countries?

Gillian Merron: I certainly share my hon. Friend's views; a boost to education is the most effective and cost-effective means of HIV prevention. We promote that as a major part of our international work in addition to improving people's knowledge, changing their attitude and behaviour, giving women more control over their own lives and promoting the availability and use of condoms.

Humanitarian Assistance

Philip Hollobone: Which country received the most humanitarian assistance from the UK in the latest period for which figures are available; and how much it received.

Gareth Thomas: Sudan received the most humanitarian assistance from the UK in each of the last three financial years. It received £78 million in 2004-05, £98 million in 2005-06, and £84 million in 2006-07.

Philip Hollobone: What steps is the Minister taking to secure greater and far more effective international co-ordination of humanitarian assistance?

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern. We have been working with a range of other donors to raise more resources for the United Nations central emergency response fund, to secure more effective humanitarian co-ordinators on the ground, and to enable aid agencies to work much more effectively together in response to emergencies.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ben Wallace: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 January.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Ben Wallace: Why do the people of Wales have a full-time Secretary of State, while our armed forces and the Scots must make do with a part-timer?

Gordon Brown: The new Secretary of State for Wales has responsibilities in addition to his responsibilities for Wales. He is overseeing the British-Irish Council, he is responsible for the joint ministerial committees on devolution, he is the Minister responsible for digital inclusion, and he is responsible for data security and information assurance. Those responsibilities are in addition to his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales.

Jim Devine: Yesterday I met senior managers from Rosyth and Clyde shipbuilding firms, who were delighted about the MOD's investment in their yards. As a result of that investment some 10,000 people are in jobs in Scotland, but the most pleasing aspect of our discussions was the substantial number of apprentices who are now being employed in the shipyards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in training, education and apprenticeships is the way forward for Britain?

Gordon Brown: We want 90 per cent. of our young people to be in apprenticeships, at college or at university by the end of the next decade, and we are doubling the number of apprenticeships so that we can give young people those opportunities. I want to see every young person who has the skill to do so acquire an apprenticeship, whether it is in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.
	I believe that our policy of expanding investment in education and training is the right one for the future of the country. It is unfortunate that the Opposition are not supporting us, and do not even support education up to the age of 18. We want opportunity for all, not just for some.

David Cameron: For more than three years the Conservative party has argued that we should scrap the form— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question to the House.

David Cameron: —that we should scrap the form that the police must fill in every time they stop someone. It is a foot long, and takes seven minutes to complete. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will now scrap the "stop" form?

Gordon Brown: It is true that for the last three years members of the Conservative party have been arguing among themselves, about Europe and about many other issues. The Flanagan report, published in November, recommended that we reduce and remove the bureaucracy associated with the filling in of forms. Flanagan will publish his final report next Monday. We are taking the action that is necessary, and the right hon. Gentleman should be supporting us.

David Cameron: I know that the Prime Minister is physically incapable of answering a straight question, but this is such a straightforward question. In just one police area in one year the police had to fill in 79,000 forms, using 9,216 hours of valuable police time. Does the Prime Minister accept that the form, introduced five years ago, has been a colossal waste of police time?
	Let me ask the Prime Minister the question again. This is the form; will he scrap it?

Gordon Brown: I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Flanagan report, which we accepted in November. It states that the form can be better administered, and that bureaucracy can be significantly reduced. We will publish the conclusion next week.
	The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is happening. We are taking action.

David Cameron: Why does the Prime Minister not stop flannelling about the Flanagan report and answer the question? This is the form; we think it should go. What does he think? Will it stay—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has prepared his questions yesterday and cannot react to the situation today. The issue is this: our Government are taking action to reduce bureaucracy in the police. There are more police officers than ever before in the history of the country. We have more police officers and more community support officers. That is why, last week, crime was down. Crime is now down 30 per cent. We are the first Government since 1945 to see crime down. He should be congratulating us, not condemning us.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ruffley, I cannot always see you because you are behind me, but I recognise your voice. You have got to be quiet.

David Cameron: What people will have heard is that the Prime Minister cannot answer a straight question.
	Let us try another one. Keeping our streets safe also means tackling terrorism. Two months ago, I identified and named in this House a number of specific preachers of hate who should not be allowed into this country. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government have accepted that as well, and that he will not allow Yusuf al-Qaradawi into Britain—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: An announcement will be made on that very soon. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we do not expel people from this country other than through proper judicial process. In the last two years, 200 people have been expelled from the country: 70 per cent. for unacceptable behaviour, 130 on grounds of national security. We are not slow to expel people who should not be in this country. The fact of the matter is that we have got to go through the proper judicial processes, and he, for one, should appreciate that.

David Cameron: This is not about expelling someone. This guy wants to come to our country, and we do not think that he should be allowed in. He was banned by a former Conservative Home Secretary, so why will the Government not ban him? Let me explain what this man, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, believes. He thinks that gay people should be executed, and encourages people to turn their bodies into bombs. Why can the Prime Minister not tell us his decision now? Does he think that Yusuf al-Qaradawi should be allowed in or not? A simple one—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: He is not in our country; the issue is— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer the question— [ Interruption. ]—in his way, without jeering him down.

Gordon Brown: In 2006, a decision was made not to exclude al-Qaradawi. We are looking at that again. He has applied to come into this country, and a decision will be made in due course. I have to say that it has to go through the proper judicial processes, but he has not been allowed into this country at this stage.

David Cameron: I think that people watching this will just conclude that this Prime Minister cannot answer a question and cannot make a decision. People are starting to say about this Government, "Never mind the complete lack of vision, never mind the relaunches; just focus on keeping us safe." In a week when the prisons adviser says that they have got no prisons strategy, when President Musharraf says that they have no terrorism strategy and when the only good idea that they have about police reform has come from the Conservative party, should he not just accept that people are not safe under Labour?

Gordon Brown: I want everybody to be safe and feel safe. Crime is down 32 per cent. under Labour. Violent crime is down 31 per cent. under Labour. It is precisely because we want people to feel safe that we are introducing neighbourhood policing. In every area of the country, neighbourhood policing will be introduced over the next few months. The Conservative party should be supporting that. More police than ever before, more community support officers than ever before, more people brought to justice than ever before—that is a record that they could never boast of, but we can say is working.

Chris Bryant: The most recent figures on teenage pregnancy show that Britain has the highest rate of any country in western Europe. It also shows that the map for teenage pregnancy is the same as that for poverty and deprivation. Do not we need to do more to tackle those high rates of teenage pregnancy—I see that the Leader of the Opposition is sniggering; he should not do that because the people of Britain will not take him seriously if he does not take such issues seriously. Do not we need to ensure that every youngster has a chance?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend says, rates of teenage pregnancy are too high in too many areas of the country and we need to take action to deal with that. He has presented proposals this week and we shall look at each one. I believe that the whole country will benefit from a better strategy on teenage pregnancy.

Nicholas Clegg: Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable that, at a time when British soldiers' lives are at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan, half their single living accommodation is still of the lowest standard, half our Apache helicopters remain unfit for service, and more than 60 per cent. of Army officers cite military overstretch as a reason for leaving the Army? Is he surprised at the widespread view that he simply does not care about our armed forces?

Gordon Brown: It is precisely because of the backlog in accommodation over many decades that we are spending £5 billion to improve service accommodation. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that, as a result of the spending review, an announcement was made to do that. He should also know that we have ordered additional helicopters for both Afghanistan and Iraq and that there will be more helicopters in the field in the next few months. We are therefore taking action on each of the matters that he mentioned.
	I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that defence spending has risen every year under this Government and it will increase in the next few years as a result of the spending review. Defence spending was cut by 20 per cent. between 1992 and 1997 and it is rising under us, but under no Liberal policy could that party ever afford to spend what is necessary on defence.

Nicholas Clegg: Why should any British soldier's family take the Prime Minister's word seriously when they feel so let down? Only this week, the Defence Committee produced a report that highlighted drastic shortages in Army medical services. There is a 46 per cent. shortfall in anaesthetists, a 62 per cent. shortfall in orthopaedic surgeons and an 80 per cent. shortfall in radiologists. If the Prime Minister cannot be bothered to provide decent medical care for our servicemen and women, how can he ask them to put their lives on the line for our country?

Gordon Brown: We have been spending substantially more on medical services. I have visited some of them and seen the improvements that have been made. Many people say that Britain has some of the best medical services for members of the armed forces in the world.
	I repeat that we are spending more on defence, and we will continue to do that, and that every urgent operational requirement of the armed forces is being met. The hon. Gentleman would not be able to provide the necessary money for the defence forces; because of our economic success, we have been able to do so.

Police Pay

Keith Vaz: When he last met the Police Federation to discuss police pay.

Gordon Brown: I am in correspondence with the Police Federation about police pay. I have explained to the federation that, as a result of staging public sector pay awards, it was not possible to pay in full the police pay award over the past year. However, I look forward to discussing with the Police Federation a long-term pay deal, which is based on the arbitration award.

Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister knows that, this time last week, almost a sixth of the entire police force of England and Wales marched through the streets of Westminster. May I take what he has just said as an assurance that future awards will be made not on an annual but a longer-term basis, and that they will recognise that, every day, police officers put their lives at risk to protect him, us and the rest of the country in the fight against organised crime and terrorism?

Gordon Brown: I not only have great admiration for the police, but, as I said before, we wanted to pay them more. A national policy to cut inflation meant that every national public sector pay award in which the Government had a role to play was staged over the past year. That is one of the reasons that inflation was brought down. However, I said to the Police Federation in my letter to Jan Berry that I hope that the police will enter into a long-term agreement on pay, based on implementing future years' arbitration awards. The Home Secretary has asked the police negotiating board to consider a multi-year deal. Teachers have already agreed a three-year deal, and the process of agreement will start when the police negotiating board meets on 6 February. I hope that we can make progress.

Engagements

Vincent Cable: rose—

Hon. Members: Hooray!

Vincent Cable: After yesterday's warning from the financial regulator that 1 million homes are at risk of repossession and that negative equity has returned, will the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong and complacent in dismissing as scaremongering the warning from our Benches and others that his reckless boom, based on lending, was going to lead to bust?

Gordon Brown: It is nice to welcome the hon. Gentleman back. Even his own party may be pleased to see him back in the position of asking me questions. However, he has misunderstood yesterday's Financial Services Authority report. The fact of the matter is that mortgage repossessions over the past four years are a fifth of what they were in the early 1990s, that mortgage rates have averaged 5 per cent. where they averaged 11 per cent. in the period before 1997, and that there were half a million people in negative equity under the Conservative Government. There are more home owners in Britain now than ever before. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see on reflection that it is because we have a policy for low inflation, have maintained low interest rates, have rising employment and have avoided any quarter of recession in the past 10 years that we can tell people that we will steer them through the difficult times. That could not be said of any other party in the House.

Robert Flello: Many of my constituents are concerned about hospital-acquired infections, but today the Health Protection Agency published figures showing a dramatic improvement in the rates of MRSA and C. difficile following the deep clean of our hospitals. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our health workers on their hard work, despite the cynicism of the Opposition?

Gordon Brown: Since June last year, we have put in an extra £50 million, so that we could inspect wards and improve infection control. We doubled the improvement teams in our hospitals and we have now introduced a new dress code. There will be screening in the future, while deep cleans, which the Opposition described as a gimmick, are already under way. We will always be vigilant. Matron numbers are to be doubled to 5,000. For those reasons, we can now report that MRSA infections are down 18 per cent. on the last quarter and that C. difficile infections are down 21 per cent. We are making progress and we will continue to make progress in the next year.

Bernard Jenkin: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Defence Committee visited Afghanistan last summer, President Karzai made it clear to us that he wanted a high-profile international envoy to help co-ordinate the international effort there? Will he convey to President Karzai our disappointment that Paddy Ashdown has been refused? Will he also explain to the House what action will now be taken to co-ordinate the international effort in Afghanistan, for which so much sacrifice has been made?

Gordon Brown: I met President Karzai last Friday and talked to him about those very issues. The fact of the matter is that the decision is for the UN Secretary-General, after consulting all the coalition forces. That consultation is still taking place. I believe that Lord Ashdown would have been a great candidate for the job, but there has to be agreement among all those people involved, and that includes the decision by the UN Secretary-General. I hope that we will have a strong development co-ordinator, as the hon. Gentleman wants.

Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend personally congratulate Chief Superintendent Steve Kavanagh, his officers and police community support officers, and especially the safer neighbourhoods teams on their achievement in cutting crime in Barnet by 8.6 per cent. so far this year, on top of 16 per cent. last year, with 24.6 per cent. in total? That is one of the best records in the Met. With 5,600 extra officers and 3,700 PCSOs in London provided by the Mayor, what does my right hon. Friend think the result will be of the cuts in the budget proposed by the Tory candidate for London Mayor?

Gordon Brown: In the London area alone, there are 6,000 more police than there were in 1997. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in graphic detail, crime is down in his constituency. The choice in London will be between an administration that wants to employ more police and wants to get crime down, and what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has said, which is that he wishes to cut spending on the Metropolitan police. That would be disastrous for the police, disastrous for London and bad for the whole country.

Shailesh Vara: Before Christmas, the Justice Secretary said that his Department would be building three so-called titan prisons. This morning, he said that those prisons "may" now be built. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether this is a titanic failure or a titanic U-turn?

Gordon Brown: We will go ahead with these prisons following the consultation that my right hon. Friend said would take place.

Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, which has recently been named as one of the top health trusts in the country by the  Health Service Journal? Will he reassure me that this Government—our Government—will provide all the financial support necessary for the trust to flourish and maintain its excellence in serving my constituents?

Gordon Brown: It is because there are 80,000 more nurses and 20,000 more doctors that we are making progress on waiting times and waiting lists. It is because of that that the rates of cancer are down and we are making progress on stroke and heart disease. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the award that has been won by the trust in his area. I congratulate the trust, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on pushing for more resources for the health service.

Mark Hunter: In light of the Government's decision to ignore the findings of the independent arbitration tribunal on police pay, will the Prime Minister please explain to the House what would be the point of any future pay disputes being taken to independent arbitration?

Gordon Brown: We made it clear throughout the whole year that we were staging public sector pay awards in the interest of getting inflation down. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Bank of England, in its recent report, said that this was one of the reasons why inflation now stands at 2 per cent. in Britain while it is 4 per cent. in America and 3 per cent. in the rest of Europe. While we wanted to pay the police more, it was necessary in the interests of national policy to get inflation down so that we could reduce interest rates, as we have done over the last few months of the year. The Home Secretary has, however, written to the Police Federation, and I have followed that up with a letter in the past few days in which we say that we look forward to a long-term pay deal based on the full implementation of the arbitration award.

Nottingham

Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham soon to launch Nottingham as an early intervention city.

Gordon Brown: We are building Sure Start centres in my hon. Friend's constituency, and we will continue to invest in under-fives provision. I congratulate him on pushing for that in his constituency.

Graham Allen: The Prime Minister is aware of the massive financial costs of failing to raise our young people properly. These include the cost of prisons, policing, drug rehabilitation and a lifetime on benefits. Does he agree that a better way is to intervene early and invest to save, by providing effective prenatal services and intensive health visiting and by comprehensive parenting skills being taught to all teenagers? Will he consider making such an early intervention strategy the centrepiece of the next comprehensive spending review, so that we can tackle once and for all the intergenerational nature of these problems that afflict our young people?

Gordon Brown: Let me say also that I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on making an issue of greater provision for the under-fives. This is part of the work that we are doing as a result of the comprehensive spending review. Our aim is to ensure that, for those children under five, any disadvantages that were previously built into their upbringing and prospects are removed as a result of Sure Start and other measures. I gather that there are 11 Sure Start centres in Nottingham already, and we are going to improve the numbers over the next few months. I also believe that Nottingham will be one of the first local authorities to benefit from the Every Child a Reader programme. We will do everything that we can to give more chances to every child under five in the country.

Engagements

Tom Clarke: In view of the disturbing events that continue in Kenya, including the massacre of women and children, tribal conflict and the assassination of an Opposition Member of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend continue to support the efforts of the international community and Kofi Annan to reintroduce peace and democracy to that country?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has taken a long-term interest in Kenya and in what happens in Africa. I talked to Kofi Annan and to Graça Machel, the mediators, last evening. I wanted them to send three clear messages to the Kenyan regime. The first is that democracy is not defended by killing people, and that those who are behind the violence will be held to account in the future. Secondly, dialogue and negotiation are the only way forward in resolving this crisis, and Kenya's politicians must now show the leadership that the Kenyan people want. European Foreign Ministers have made that clear, as did European leaders in a statement last night. Thirdly, the international community will not let the people of Kenya down. We have given £2 million to the Red Cross to help to relieve urgent humanitarian needs, and we will do everything we can through the Department for International Development to provide help to those who have been displaced and harmed. We also stand ready to provide financial support to a genuinely representative Government who are prepared to put the interests of the people of Kenya first.

Patrick Cormack: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assertion that Parliament should be at the centre of our national life and his promise that the European Union (Amendment) Bill would have full consideration in this House with the draconian timetable motion that we have had thrust upon us this week?

Gordon Brown: The Bill is being discussed in very great detail. It was discussed last week, it is being discussed this week and it will be discussed next week and the week after that. I think that the country will know that there has been full and detailed discussion of every aspect of this legislation.

Michael Connarty: With the energy supply companies, including Scottish Gas, putting up domestic fuel charges by at least 15 per cent. at the same time as Scottish Gas declares an obscene 636 per cent. rise in profits to £700 million—proving, as Energywatch said, that the market is rigged against the public—surely it is time for Ofgem to return to its original role of restricting the price rises of these rip-off suppliers. What is the role of the regulator if not that?

Gordon Brown: The regulator has been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into all those matters. The fact is that there has been a 60 to 80 per cent. increase in coal, gas and oil. We cannot deny that those increases are taking place in every country in the world, causing inflationary pressures, including on ordinary consumers. We have the winter allowance in place, which provides £300 for pensioners over 80 and £200 for those over 70. The energy companies have been asked to provide additional money, which is being raised from £40 million to £56 million, to support consumers and we will also do more to help fuel-efficient provision of energy services for households under the Warm Front programme. That will help people to insulate and draught-proof their homes. More money will be going into that in the next few years. We continue to look into all those aspects of the problems people face as a result of energy bills and we will make further announcements to the House.

Nicholas Soames: The Prime Minister may be aware that the Post Office earmarked four post offices for closure in the Mid-Sussex constituency. It invited a detailed consultation for six weeks, to which there were more than 6,500 replies—all unreservedly in favour of retaining those post offices. On Tuesday, however, the Post Office announced that they are all to be closed. Why does the Prime Minister allow his Government to be party to such a rotten deceit of the public in respect of that consultation?

Gordon Brown: We have made available £1.7 billion to help post offices in this country and we will continue to make money available for Post Office services. There is a process of consultation and an appeals system, although I do not know whether it was taken up. I urge the hon. Gentleman to meet the Minister in charge of the Post Office. We are listening to what people say, but the fact of the matter is that many post offices are not used in any great detail. We will continue to put the money in to help the Post Office service.

Martin Salter: Will the Prime Minister find time to examine the evidence heard yesterday by the Home Affairs Committee on how the Government's own forced marriage unit cannot get even its own posters advertising advice and support for young people into local schools for fear of upsetting local opinion? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to investigate this problem and introduce new guidelines to ensure that support services are available to young people at risk of being forced into marriages against their will?

Gordon Brown: I am extremely concerned by what was said there and by what my hon. Friend now says. I believe that Ministers with responsibility for schools will want to look further into this. Indeed, we will do so and report back to the House.

Willie Rennie: The Prime Minister will understand the importance for his constituency and mine of the construction of the two new aircraft carriers. Will he therefore explain why, although the Defence Secretary agreed the go-ahead for those aircraft carriers last July, the contracts for their construction have not yet been signed?

Gordon Brown: We were able to announce the two new aircraft carriers. They will benefit not only Rosyth, but many shipyards around the country. We are in the process of agreeing contracts to go ahead with them, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to go ahead with those contracts.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh is renowned for the quality of the medical treatment and care it gives to its young patients, but as a result of a review being carried out by the Scottish National party Administration in Edinburgh it is currently facing downgrading, and in particular the loss of its children's cancer services. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of the hospital staff over many years, and in congratulating the Edinburgh Evening News on its "hands off the sick kids" campaign, to reflect the public concern over this threat?

Gordon Brown: I gather that the Scottish National party does not want this issue to be raised in the House of Commons. I have some knowledge of the Royal Hospital for Sick Children. It has given service to the community over many decades, and it is valued in the community. Unfortunately, the rate of increase of expenditure on health care in Scotland is not now the same as the rate of increase in England. That is the unfortunate result of policy decisions made by the SNP.

Daniel Kawczynski: I must tell the Prime Minister that Shropshire's local education authority is ranked 145th out of 149 LEAs for funding, and that all Shropshire MPs have to fight tooth and nail to save our primary schools in small rural villages. When will the Prime Minister give fairer funding to rural shire counties such as mine to sustain rural village schools, and not pour money into Telford? Why should Telford have £200 more than Shrewsbury?

Gordon Brown: We have doubled expenditure on schooling. We continue to increase the amount of money that is spent on education. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to increase expenditure on education, he had better change the policy of his Front Bench, who have opposed our increases in money for schools.

Points of Order

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I am sure that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House when he said I wanted to cut spending on— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am the only one who has to stay and listen to it.

Boris Johnson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for staying. Since I am sure that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House when he said that I wanted to cut spending on the Metropolitan police, and since that is the exact opposite of the case—I want to get more police officers out on the beat to reverse the rise in violent crime over the past eight years and to restore to our streets, buses and station platforms a sense of safety and security—will you, Mr. Speaker, ask him to come as soon as possible to this Chamber to rectify that mistake?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the record straight—and very swiftly at that.

Neil Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the actions of Members in relation to the work they do in other Members' constituencies, and in particular on the actions of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) in relation to the Tote in the Wigan constituency. The hon. Gentleman approached the  Wigan Evening Post representative in the Press Gallery, and the paper ran a story about 650 job losses in Wigan because of the Tote being auctioned off to the private sector. I understand that the hon. Gentleman lists the Tote as paying him money in order to— [Interruption.]—bat on its behalf in his entry in the Register of Members' Interests, but on the Monday following the story the Tote main board issued a statement refuting what the hon. Gentleman had said and saying that the story was untrue. Therefore, he was clearly not acting on its behalf at that time. At that time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give me clarity: what is his point of order? I have to be careful that a Member is not being attacked through the method of a point of order.

Neil Turner: The point of order is whether or not it is right for an hon. Member from another constituency to brief the press about a false story, which has put fear into people and has undermined my work and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in our constituencies. That is interfering in the actions of my constituency, and it is against the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Having heard the circumstances, I must say that that is not a point of order—it is not a matter for the Chair. I make an appeal to hon. Members. I receive correspondence about comments made regarding one another's constituencies, but it is best if the Speaker is not drawn into those matters. It is best if local MPs, regardless of party differences, can resolve the matters themselves without raising them on the Floor of the House. The matter ends there. It is not a point of order.

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not telling me about points of order, because I have forgotten more than she will ever learn about these matters.

Dawn Butler: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is just that Opposition Members do not listen to the rules of the House. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) about Opposition Members coming into my—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me stop the hon. Lady there, because some of the correspondence to which I was referring is about wee local difficulties just north of this House, and I do not want to know about them. That is what I am trying to tell hon. Members—do not draw the Chair into these matters.

Ben Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I shall hear what he has to say.

Ben Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) did not mean to mislead the House, but he made an allegation that I received payment from the Tote and that that was in the Register of Members' Interests. Of course when he examines the register, he will see that no such entry exists—nor did I receive any such payment. Would he perhaps take the opportunity to withdraw that scandalous allegation?

Mr. Speaker: I consider that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has put the matter straight.

Ben Wallace: He should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I said, it was not a proper point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put the matter clearly on the record.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is right, is it not, that no Member should attempt to mislead this House? The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) commented on what the Prime Minister said, but it should be recorded that in fact it was the Conservatives in the Greater London authority who opposed the introduction of safer neighbourhood teams.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Member for Henley said was perfectly in order. He said that the Prime Minister may have "inadvertently" misled the House. Often it is the words that we use in this place that keep us in order, and he used the term "inadvertently".

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister reiterated his intention that the European Union treaty should be debated at length and line by line—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going to extend Prime Minister's Question Time—try that one next week, and who knows.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that during International Development questions we only got as far as Question 6. Would you try to do what you can to ensure that we make progress in these matters?

Mr. Speaker: I always do. Of course, the hon. Lady will know that I called her on a supplementary, and that takes up time. If she did not stand, I would move on quickly, but that is not the point of the House, is it? The point of the House is to find a balance between getting through the Order Paper and allowing hon. Members to have their say.

Andrew Dismore: rose—

Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is not going to bring up the Tote again. I call Mr. Dismore.

Andrew Dismore: Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), Mr. Speaker. I believe that I first raised the question of cuts in the police according to his policy, and that was based on a report in the  Evening Standard—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not getting into that.

Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCartney, I hope that we are not going the re-open the matter of the Tote. I know that you are a constituency neighbour of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), but if this is not a point of order, I shall stop you, albeit reluctantly.

Ian McCartney: May I reassure you, Mr. Speaker that the way in which I will put this matter is in order? It is in order to raise this point of order. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) is not a constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

Sale of Wine (Measures)

Greg Mulholland: I beg to move,
	That leave is given to bring in a Bill to require licensed premises which sell wine by the glass to offer measures of 125ml.
	The current regulations state that wine that is not pre-packed must be sold by the bottle, by the glass in measures of 125 ml, 175 ml or multiples thereof, or by the carafe. The Bill would simply require all licensed premises to offer a 125 ml measure in addition to the other sizes specified in the legislation. That is important because there has been a move in recent years to serve only larger sized glasses of wine in bars and pubs.
	I used to work in marketing, including for several leading marketing agencies, among whose customers were several leading pub companies, including bar and pub chains, so I know from my own experience that some of them made a deliberate policy decision to get rid of the 125 ml size and serve only the larger 175 ml and 250 ml glasses. Increasingly, therefore 175 ml has become the standard size or—awful word, but now often used in our increasingly Americanised language—regular size. The 250 ml measure then becomes a large size.
	The introduction of the larger glass sizes has had something to do with changing wine-drinking habits, as wine drinking in pubs has become more popular, and indeed we have seen the quality of wine improve dramatically in the licensed trade, which is a very good thing. But it is of course also about money. If people can be persuaded to "trade up", to use the business term, bigger glasses equal higher prices and greater profit.
	The psychology is clear. People do trade up. Often people order "large" as the default measure—a group of young women egging each other on Friday night after work, a boss not wanting to look stingy buying drinks for his staff or a man wanting to impress on a first date. The trend is not universal, and 125 ml glasses are still served in many individual licensee pubs and in many community pubs, but the serving of only the larger measures has become standard practice and actual policy. The introduction to the "The Good Pub Guide 2006" says:
	"This year we have spotted an unnerving trend for pubs to push up the size of their wine glasses, and of course the price of what's inside them. A standard glass of wine was 125ml...Now, many pubs use a 175ml glass as standard...To them, a large glass is 250ml, or a third of a bottle. This isn't generosity, it's just a way of getting more money into their tills, leaving many customers drinking more than they want to, and perhaps if they are driving, more than is safe. We suggest all pubs selling wine use the 125ml glass as their standard size."
	There are two issues at the heart of this Bill. The first relates to alcohol awareness and health, and the second is consumer choice. The 2006 survey by the Office for National Statistics said that 36 per cent. of people who had heard about the Government's guidelines on drinking could not say what they were. About a third of frequent beer drinkers and a quarter of frequent wine drinkers are not aware of the number of units that they are drinking.
	The rules of thumb, on which people used to rely, have become increasingly outdated. People often wrongly assume that a glass of wine is about a unit. That was based on a 125 ml glass, but when that is not offered, people think that a glass of wine is the standard measure available, now usually 175ml.
	Wine is also stronger than it used to be. A new way of representing alcohol consumption has been introduced, and that is a positive step. Now, a 125ml glass of 12.5 per cent. wine is deemed to be 1.5 units, a 175ml glass of the same wine is 2 units and a 250ml glass is 3 units. However, when the smaller glass sizes are not on offer, people fall into the trap of thinking, "I just had a few glasses of wine last night," when, in fact, if they had three large glasses, they had a whole bottle of wine. Alcohol Concern backs that up, saying:
	"Given the wide range of volumes provided on licensed premises... this creates a great deal of scope for confusion and accidental harmful drinking. A possibility that is now all the more likely given the normalisation, in many establishments, of large glass sizes".
	In the context of recent surveys and figures showing increasing health problems caused by excessive alcohol consumption, particularly of wine, women are of particular concern. Sixty-nine per cent. of women in this country drink wine and 55 per cent. of wine purchased in pubs in the UK is bought by women. Women are drinking more than ever before and it is having an effect on their health. Cases of liver disease in women aged 25 to 34 have doubled in the past decade. Alcohol Concern suggests that drinking two to five units per day increases the risk of breast cancer to 41 per cent. The incidence of breast cancer has increased by 12 per cent. in the past 10 years, with alcohol related to 4 per cent. of cases.
	The Bill is also about choice. If a wine-drinking customer wants to have only a small glass of wine, just as someone may want only half a pint of beer, he or she will be able to do so. If customers want the larger sizes, they will be able to have them, but at least they will have the information that they are larger. Consumer education is also important, and many pubs and bar chains clearly advertise how many units are in each glass size, which is to be commended.
	Let me say what the Bill is not about, lest there be any misrepresentation of it. It is not a means to stop licensed premises serving larger glasses, or to say that customers should not be offered a choice of sizes. It will not require pubs and bars to invest in new glasses: a 125 ml measure can be, and indeed often is, served in a 175 ml glass. Nor will it—or should it—stop customers who wish as a group to buy a bottle of wine, with a glass for each of them; that might give them the choice of having six 125 ml glasses, rather than four 175 ml. The Bill is not about decreasing choice for customers; it is about increasing choice for customers, as well as giving them better, clearer and more standardised information about what they are consuming.
	I am delighted to have the support not only of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, but of related organisations. Tacade, which promotes the health and well-being of children and is at the forefront of alcohol education, fully supports the Bill, saying:
	"Selling wine by the 125 ml glass would help enable people to have a better understanding of units of alcohol and adhere to the government's safe, sensible drinking guidelines".
	Alcohol Concern states:
	"In our view it is reasonable to demand that, as responsible vendors, licensees provide genuine choices for their customers by offering both small and large glasses. As such, we urge you to support it into a second reading."
	The editor of "The Good Pub Guide", Fiona Stapley, says
	"We absolutely agree with the sale of wine measure bill."
	I believe that this House and, indeed, the Government are committed to encouraging responsible drinking and to tackling the problems that arise when the guidelines are not followed. I therefore hope that the Government will genuinely embrace my Bill. There is no quick fix for the problems that we have seen recently in our towns and cities, but the Bill proposes a simple measure that could contribute to better awareness of alcohol consumption and the need to monitor it. That problem has already been highlighted by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who said:
	"Larger glass sizes and higher alcohol content of wine in particular over a number of years mean more of us are drinking more than we think."
	I hope that the Government will listen to the organisations that have backed the Bill and to the various experts from the licensed trade and the health sector, and that they will seriously consider incorporating the Bill into the Government programme.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Mulholland, Dr. Richard Taylor, John Thurso, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. John Grogan, Lorely Burt, Peter Luff, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Howard Stoate, Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Nigel Evans and Peter Bottomley.

Sale of Wine (measures)

Greg Mulholland accordingly presented a Bill to require licensed premises which sell wine by the glass to offer measures of 125ml: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed [Bill 64].

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)
	 — 
	(2nd Allotted Day)

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

John Hutton: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy.
	It is a great pleasure to introduce this important debate about energy. That is, of course, its theme. The twin challenges of tackling climate change and energy security are perhaps two of the biggest challenges that this generation of European politicians and leaders must resolve. If we are to succeed in resolving them, we will need tough and effective action, at both a national and global level. In particular, if we are to respond to those challenges, they call for closer co-operation between members states of the European Union. That is why I strongly support ratifying the treaty of Lisbon. I want the United Kingdom to continue to play a leading role in shaping our response to both those significant energy challenges. It is the view of Labour Members and, I believe, of other hon. Members that we can best do that by passing the European Union (Amendment) Bill and by ratifying the treaty. The case for doing so is compelling.
	The treaty enables the European Union to move on from years spent debating institutional reform to look out on the world, not in on ourselves, and to deal with the issues that matter to the people of Europe. The efficient and secure supply of energy will be critical to our economic performance in the coming decades. Building European Union institutions that are better able to function more efficiently, negotiate more effectively and respond more quickly to the needs of its citizens must be our collective aim. However, that chance will be squandered if Opposition Members are allowed to get their way. We cannot afford to spend the next decade looking inward or retreating to the margins of influence in the European Union, as some would like.

Mark Harper: Given that the Secretary of State says that there is a compelling case, will he explain why the Government originally opposed the powers and wanted them removed from the treaty, and said that they were completely unnecessary because all the necessary powers were already in existing treaties?

John Hutton: I shall come on to that point. The important thing about the treaty of Lisbon—I hope that this reassures the hon. Gentleman—is that all the energy red lines are fully reflected in it. Let me set out the three most important ones. First, the treaty protects and secures our rights over our national oil and gas reserves. I would have thought that he supported that. Secondly, it will make sure that we can always act to ensure security of supply in emergencies. I would have thought that a Conservative Member of Parliament supported that. Finally, the new article will not impede progress in opening up EU energy markets. We hear a lot—rightly so—from Conservative Members about the importance of energy liberalisation. That is why the treaty of Lisbon is important and why we are right to introduce it in the way that we have.

Mark Harper: May I come back to the Secretary of State on that?

John Hutton: No.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the Secretary of State says about the liberalisation of markets. Clearly, that is the important issue from the European Commission's point of view. How will the treaty encourage that given the Commission's proposals for unbundling ownership are being strongly resisted by France and Germany?

John Hutton: I shall come on to energy liberalisation. It is right to point out that the Commission's current proposals are being strongly resisted by a number of member states. The important lesson that I draw from all of this is that we would not have reached this point in what I hope will be a substantial transformation of the EU energy market if it were not for qualified majority voting. It has provided a strong stimulus for reform of this important sector of our European economy. As I said, it would not have been possible to have reached this stage if it had not been for qualified majority voting.
	If we were to follow the advice of those on the Conservative Front Bench—I accept that not all Conservative Members feel the same way—we would be looking forward to a decade of introspection in the European Union, which would be damaging both to the EU and also, in particular, to the interests of the United Kingdom, which is my principal concern. I find it genuinely hard to understand the position that the Conservative party—officially, at least—is taking for two reasons. First, it wants to disown its role in relation to the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, both of which were in Britain's long-term economic and political interests and both of which rightly involved, in my view, extensions to majority voting in the Council. We would not have seen the opening up of markets in Europe without qualified majority voting.
	However, if that were not bad enough, there is the second problem with the Conservative party's position, which is that it now wants to blight Britain's future in the new enlarged European Union by renegotiating the basis of Britain's membership. It is that deadly combination of disowning the past and blighting the future that shows how grotesquely out of touch those on the Opposition Front Bench have become.  [Interruption.] I believe that howling at the moon, which is the best description that one can give of the Conservatives' policy on Europe, is no rational substitute for a sensible policy on Europe, but I am afraid that that is all we hear today from most Conservative Members.

Mark Harper: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his go.
	An enlarged but more effective European Union, because of the treaty, can help to support our national and global energy priorities.
	More than 50 years ago, the founders of the European Union recognised the critical importance of energy, then in the form of coal, to the economic and political security of Europe. Coal and steel were identified as the two raw materials crucial to power and industry in the Europe of the time. Today, against an increasingly competitive and politicised energy landscape, energy sources are even more critical to the continued economic success of European Union member states.
	In recognition of that, the Lisbon treaty establishes a specific article—176—for energy policy, to give any energy measures passed at the EU level a specific legal base for the first time. Previously, the European Union could introduce directives on energy only by using other related articles, the most common of which were article 95, to do with the approximation of laws for the internal market, and article 175, dealing with the environment. Existing legislation passed under other articles include directives on the internal market in gas and electricity, under articles 47(2), 55 and 95, directives on the promotion of renewables and co-generation and on energy end-use efficiency and energy services, and the directive on the EU emissions trading scheme, all of which were made under article 175. Without a separate article, considerable time has undoubtedly been spent by the Commission, officials, national institutions and lawyers on looking inward at the bureaucracy of the EU rather than on discussing how we can deal with our energy challenges.
	I believe strongly that there is therefore a need to turn the aspiration of open competitive markets that secure affordable energy supply while working towards a global low-carbon economy into increased and better-focused action at an EU level.
	Supply disruptions to any one member state affect the European market as a whole and demonstrate that long-term bilateral contracts alone cannot wholly insulate countries from the impacts of supply tightness across the EU. The new separate article will make it easier for member states to discuss the issues in more depth and to work on delivering the energy solutions that we need. It will help to ensure that EU energy policies are clear, coherent and, we hope, mutually reinforcing.
	The new article will aim to do four things: ensure the functioning of the energy market; ensure security of energy supply in the EU; promote energy efficiency and energy savings and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and promote the interconnection of energy networks.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Secretary of State clear up some confusion? There seems to be an argument over the security of the energy supply, the stocks being held and the oil supplies, but it seems to me that the provision is perfectly reasonable. Can he tell me why it is coming under criticism?

John Hutton: I shall try to deal with that point, but I think that the criticism is coming from others, not from us. It is important to emphasise that it is clear that matters such as energy stockpiles are taken under QMV. That has been the position since the treaty of Nice. Perhaps this will answer my hon. Friend's point: the European Union will not have control of the UK's energy stockpiles. We will be required, rightly and sensibly, to maintain such supplies, but they will remain under UK control and nothing in the treaty affects that. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, at least, want to make such an argument, but those who have done so have not understood article 176 and its clear and express provisions.
	We have also been able to ensure that the UK continues to have the right to determine the conditions for exploiting our natural energy resources, our choice between different energy sources and the general structure of our energy supply. Article 176 secures Britain's energy red lines in the way that I have described, safeguarding the British national interest in the process.

Graham Brady: Obviously, we are here in an effort to understand the detail of article 176 and its implications for the United Kingdom. Can the Secretary of State explain his interpretation of what would happen in the event of a conflict between the goal of energy security at an EU level and at a national level, given that the EU would be given legislative powers under the article?

John Hutton: It is important to understand that this section of the treaty of Lisbon is essentially a consolidation exercise in relation to QMV rather than a significant extension of it. The importance of article 176 has to be properly understood by Conservative Members if they are to sustain their criticisms.
	The treaty contains a proper recognition in the laws of the EU, for the first time, of the sovereignty of member states over their national resources. That will trump any other provision in the treaty and ensure that the powers on QMV have to be exercised against the background of the clear wording of article 176.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State says that this is a consolidation exercise, but he knows that there are two new solidarity obligations—one in article 175 and one in amended article 100—to deal with periods of crisis. Given that the obligation could incur infraction proceedings by the Commission and, if judiciable, by the European Court of Justice, how does the Secretary of State think it might affect our freedom to supply oil, for example, to an non-EU member state in times of crisis—perhaps to another NATO member—rather than to other member states under the solidarity clause?

John Hutton: I think I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. In this context, we are essentially talking about situations with which we have become all too familiar—those in relation to terrorism, and so on. I would have thought that there was a palpable case for co-ordinated action across the EU to deal with such issues. In relation to his point about social cohesion and solidarity, of course it was Maastricht that extended the activities of the Community in many areas, including in the field of energy. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that he voted for the Maastricht treaty and supported it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State is missing the point. It is nothing to do with social solidarity; this is a specific, new obligation in the treaty to act in solidarity with other member states, both in normal market conditions and at times of crisis. Given that that the obligation is judiciable and can incur infraction proceedings, it is very serious and might—in my view, it will—affect our freedom of choice to supply energy to non-member states, that is, to our other military allies. We might need or decide to do so at the appropriate time. The Secretary of State did not answer that serious point, which has nothing to do with Maastricht as the obligations are new. Can he answer it now?

John Hutton: I do not want to prolong the exchange unnecessarily. As the right hon. Gentleman can see, I have rather a substantial speech to make.

Several hon. Members: rose —

John Hutton: Let me make it clear that I shall not give way at this moment in time. I want to come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
	The solidarity provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have been designed to deal with national emergencies, including terrorism. With great respect to him, I would have hoped that he could find some common ground with us, on that point at least.

Graham Brady: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

John Hutton: No, I shall not give way—

Peter Luff: rose—

John Hutton: I shall give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in a minute.
	On the specific point about energy, it is important to bear in mind what the treaty says. It states:
	"measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	Those are important guarantees to have in the treaty and the body of European law that were not there before. Given the perspective held by the right hon. Member for Wells, I would had thought he would be able to support them.

Peter Luff: My concern, too, is about paragraph 87 of the treaty—this new paragraph 1 of article 100—with its reference to a
	"spirit of solidarity between Member States".
	When I read that, I imagined that it referred to the problems with the supply of Russian gas to eastern Europe, for example, and the consequences for the British and western European markets. The Secretary of State is saying, almost by implication, that it is restricted to subjects such as terrorism. Will he be a little clearer about the range of circumstances in which he thinks the provision will apply?

John Hutton: I would prefer to make a little progress with my speech, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a proper answer as the debate proceeds.

Rob Marris: Article 122 of the consolidated texts, which is, I think, the article 100 that is being discussed, states in paragraph 2 that the Commission, having consulted people,
	"may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned."
	Surely the article about emergency situations is to do with financial assistance from the EU, and not to do with diverting supplies from one country to another, or anything else.

John Hutton: May I say how much I appreciate my hon. Friend's support? I am grateful to him for providing a clarification that we all regard as very helpful.
	I do not believe that a fair-minded person could regard the provisions in the treaty as being of anything other than a positive benefit to the UK and the EU as a whole, unless opposition to this article is being used as a proxy by those who do not believe in tackling climate change or who want us to get out of the EU altogether. People will form their own opinion about that.
	In the move to a separate article, the treaty confirms the role of QMV, and its retention is unequivocally in the UK's national interest. For years the UK has been working to achieve energy priorities, such as the liberalisation of Europe's energy market. We believe that the competitiveness of Europe's energy markets is fundamental to the economic performance of the EU over the next 50 years. Although progress and agreement have been possible without a vote, the potential for a decision to be taken under QMV has removed many of the incentives for an individual country with protectionist instincts to try to block progress against the wishes of the majority.
	It seems certain to me that without QMV we would have made little or no progress in liberalising EU energy markets. In fact, it is arguable whether the Commission would even have proposed them in the first place. We would certainly have had no chance of securing the latest package of liberalisation measures, which those on the Opposition Front Bench have repeatedly called for us to support—the so-called third package of energy liberalisation, which is being negotiated. The UK strongly supports those proposals, which represent a real breakthrough in opening up Europe's energy markets. The aim is to prevent incumbent energy players from keeping others out of the market, and to promote competition. That would benefit energy consumers—individuals and businesses—in the UK. We are working with the Commission and our member state allies to make sure that that happens.
	It will not be easy, as there is significant opposition to the proposals. Under a regime of voting by unanimity—which is what I suspect many Opposition Members would prefer—opponents of change could sit on their hands and resist any progress whatsoever, but with QMV we can make, and are making, real progress. We are unlocking decision making, breaking down time-consuming bureaucratic stalemates and helping to promote policies that we believe are in the interests of all the people of the EU.
	I turn now to the important relationship between the EU and UK energy policy. Half a century ago, the European Coal and Steel Community brought European countries together in economic and political partnerships to build a lasting peace across the continent after the carnage of two world wars. Those early steps have borne considerable fruit. We have come closer together, and that is a good thing. Our continent is more prosperous and peaceful, and those are obviously positive developments. The threat of full-scale confrontation between European countries no longer exists.
	In all those respects, the EU has played a positive role. I hope that hon. Members from all parties can agree on that at least, but we are undoubtedly still confronted by many difficult challenges, both at home and abroad. We are clear that every member state should be responsible for its own energy resources. That is not a Community competence, and nor should it be. It has been an important red line in the Lisbon treaty negotiations, and the treaty does not change that basic legal reality.
	The Government have set out the objectives of our energy policy. We have focused on ensuring the secure provision of affordable and sustainable energy supplies for every UK citizen, as well as the successful transition of our country to a low-carbon economy. We are working with the energy companies and consumers to improve energy efficiency and increase our use of low-carbon energy sources so as to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels will remain a major part of our energy mix for years to come. The best way to protect ourselves against potential supply difficulties caused by either natural disasters or resource nationalism is to develop as diverse a mix of energy sources, suppliers and trade routes as possible.
	The UK is also undergoing a long-term transition from being a net energy exporter to being a net energy importer. Unlike many EU member states, we had years of being self-sufficient in oil and gas production but, however successfully we manage our remaining North sea oil and gas reserves, by 2020 imports are likely to account for well over half of our oil and gas requirements.
	I believe that dealing effectively with those challenges means that we have to build a solid base of strong bilateral and multilateral relationships. Moreover, although our national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can play an important part in tackling the problem, UK greenhouse gas emissions amount to only 2 per cent. of world emissions. Obviously, therefore, we need to work closely with other countries on a global level to make a significant difference. By acting with an enlarged and, thanks to the Lisbon treaty, more efficient EU, the UK will be able to help to deliver solutions for climate change and energy security at a European and international level.

Bob Spink: The Secretary of State is right to say that the UK generates only 2 per cent. of global carbon emissions, but does he accept that we have a duty to set an example to the international community when it comes to tackling the problem and setting up solutions to it? Can he guarantee that the treaty will not interfere in any way with the UK's drive to introduce new and greener sources of energy generation, such as nuclear? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the treaty will not result in any increase in our constituents' energy costs?

John Hutton: The question of energy prices is complicated. I do not think that any Minister in any Government in Europe could claim to be able to hold down energy prices. That is not the world that we live in. We must tackle the problem of the fuel poor, and we are developing measures to that end, but there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty to impede progress on climate change or energy security—far from it, in fact. Moreover, the treaty builds the concept of sustainable development into the EU's legal architecture for the first time. Such policies should secure support from all sides of the House, not opposition.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend said that by 2020 we are likely to import half of all the gas that we use. He will know that the new gas pipe from Norway is likely to make more gas available and that that could trigger a second dash for gas. We need the diverse energy mix that he has described, so will he be considering capping the amount of gas used for electricity generation? It already accounts for 40 per cent. of our gas usage, and by 2020 that proportion could be 60 per cent. or more.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those questions, but we are not going to cap any source of energy. That would be entirely the wrong thing to do, and completely incompatible with the fundamental features of our energy market. The question of carbon capture is especially pertinent in relation to the future of gas and coal, and all hon. Members should take some pride in the fact that the UK is the only member of the EU that is committed to a carbon capture and storage demonstration project on a commercial scale. I hope that other countries will make a similar commitment so that we can look at a range of technologies—including post-combustion, pre-combustion, oxy fuel, coal and gas—that could begin to make a significant difference.
	Taking CCS out of the equation would cause a problem on a global scale when it comes to dealing with climate change. Estimates made by the International Energy Agency, the Stern review and others show that as much as a third of our total global carbon mitigation strategy will depend on CCS technology. So my answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) is that we should not set about the problem by capping energy sources but we should maximise the energy that we get from renewable sources, and the EU has proposals to that end.
	In addition, I think that we should look at nuclear, and the Government have made our position clear on that. Finally, gas and coal will be part of our energy mix for some considerable time, and CCS will be an important way to make sure that those energy sources do not make matters worse. However, I do not believe that placing caps on individual energy sources is the right thing to do.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have strongly supported the emphasis that my right hon. Friend has placed on energy sovereignty at a national level, and his recently expressed view that we should move as far as possible towards self-sufficiency in the longer term. However, Germany's installed solar power capacity is 350 times greater than Britain's, and it has 10 times more wind power capacity than we have. That provision is the result of intervention by the state rather than by the EU. Should we not do what Germany has done? Should not the Government take action now rather than rely on the EU?

John Hutton: The German Government are playing an active and supporting role in relation to the new proposals from the European Commission, and they do not believe that Germany should not be engaged in shaping the new renewables directive. Indeed, the German Government have made significant progress on renewable energy in the past 10 or 15 years, and I pay great tribute to them for that.
	I believe that the UK has made progress. We have doubled the amount of energy drawn from renewable sources in the past few years, and we are planning to treble it. We will have to do significantly more in the years up to 2020 if we are to meet the EU targets, but so far we have concentrated too much on the financial aspects of renewables promotion. We should not overlook some of the other problems with regulatory and planning consents that have got in the way of really moving ahead with renewable energy in this country.
	For example, it is a matter of great regret to me that many local authorities around the country—run by the Conservatives, the Scottish National party and even my own party—have presented a brick wall to renewables schemes. There is no place for nimbyism when it comes to climate change, but there has been far too much of it.

Colin Burgon: My right hon. Friend mentioned the nuclear power industry. I have grave reservations about the Government's proposals, which have been sold to the public on the assurance that the taxpayer will not underwrite any costs—such as clean-up costs—that are incurred. However, reports this week claim that EU directives and pressure from the European Commission mean that the British taxpayer will in fact have to underwrite the costs on any nuclear incident that might arise. Will he clarify the situation?

John Hutton: Governments in the United Kingdom and around the world have entered into binding international agreements for dealing with any serious nuclear incident to ensure that public health is protected and decontamination takes place. It would be grossly irresponsible for the UK Government to pull out of such responsibilities, and we have no intention of doing so. Yes, it is a potential issue for all of us, but there is no question at all of a responsible Government running away from that kind of responsibility, and we have no intention of doing so.
	On the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal, we have been very clear about where new lines must be drawn if new nuclear is to play a role in the UK energy mix. The only sort of energy generation that we subsidise in the UK is renewable. We are not proposing a subsidy for nuclear power, and we have made it clear that sufficient funds will have to be accrued over the lifetime operation of nuclear plants to cover the costs of long-term waste disposal and decommissioning the sites. Those costs should not fall to UK taxpayers. That is the view that we have reached.

Richard Ottaway: I do not know whether it has been put on the Secretary of State's desk yet, but is he aware of the report by Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at New college, Oxford? He says:
	"The Government's nuclear energy policy is fundamentally flawed because it relies on the 'fiction' that a new generation of reactors can be built without state support".
	He goes on to say that the way out is to have auctions for long-term reductions in carbon emissions over 20 to 30 years. I ask the Secretary of State to have a hard look at that idea, because I think that there is something in it.

John Hutton: Obviously we treat the comments of such a distinguished person with a great deal of respect and interest. I do not think that the professor made those comments during the consultation period; they came after it ended. I have been struck by how strong the power companies' interest has been in developing new nuclear proposals on the basis of the terms that we have set out. We are not mandating nuclear; we are not requiring power companies to construct, build and operate new nuclear power stations. We have established the ground rules for how that can be done in future, and it is up to the power companies to respond with proposals. Personally, I think that the professor's comments are not germane. It is likely that there will be significant interest in undertaking new nuclear projects that follow the lines that we have proposed, and energy companies have themselves strongly expressed that view to us.

Ian Taylor: I do not want us to get bogged down in a rehash of the energy statement. This country needs new nuclear power stations just to maintain the percentage of the power that is currently provided by nuclear. The key to this debate is that Europe as a whole is already 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy, 25 per cent. of which comes from Russia. Both of those percentages are rising. As a result, it is crucial that the treaty provision on solidarity is supported. I welcome what the treaty proposes, and I want to hear much more about what the Government will do to drive forward a more cohesive energy policy at the European Union level.

John Hutton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He has taken a consistent view on all those matters, and I appreciate his remarks. Eventually—I know it looks as though it will be at some far distant point in the future—I shall come on to the points that he raised.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned the interesting report from Professor Dieter Helm and Oxera. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the report stresses that the United Kingdom has the most liberalised energy market in the European Union? That has given our consumers the benefits of a much greater choice of supplier and has lowered our prices. It also gives us lower prices than other parts of the European Union. That is the way forward for the EU, which is why all Opposition Members should support the Lisbon treaty's provisions on energy.

John Hutton: I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her work on energy policy. We hear a lot from Opposition Members about the costs of Europe for energy consumers in the UK—I have been reading a briefing that was made available to Conservative Members this morning. What is always missing from such debates is any mention of the significant benefits of EU membership when it comes to energy, and which my right hon. Friend highlighted. It is true that the report to which she referred highlights the fact that the UK has the most liberalised energy market in the EU. It also makes it clear that it is the most competitive energy market in the EU. That simply would not be the case if it had not been for the extension of QMV to such issues. I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that that is an achievement of the Conservative Government, but the sad thing is that not many Conservative Members present want to acknowledge that. That is a sad reflection on the direction that Conservative politics has taken.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Hutton: Yes, but then I really will make some progress.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware that just over a year ago the Russians frustrated the supply of gas to continental Europe. That gave us all a significant shock and focused our minds on providing energy supplies in-country to meet our own needs. I therefore applaud the sentiment that he expressed: we need to strive towards ensuring that our country is energy-rich. I am also acutely aware that the provision of nuclear capacity will be constrained by suppliers and the availability in each country of people to manage those facilities. The UK currently does not have the capacity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a statement, not an intervention.

John Hutton: I must say that I thought it was a very good statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is by the bye.

John Hutton: I am sure that that is true. The events to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) referred were a wake-up call for all of us. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to some European Union member states being 25 per cent. dependent on Russian gas; some are 100 per cent. dependent on it. We in the European Union have to keep that firmly in mind, and consider what its long-term significance is.
	I should try to make progress. On the proposals that the European Union has put on the table, I am sure that the House will be aware that the European Commission has published a package of ambitious climate and energy targets and measures for member states in a range of areas, including energy efficiency and new technologies. The UK played an important role in the development of those and other EU energy measures. As a result, we see the EU's overall energy package as a good starting point for the negotiations ahead.
	We believe that if the EU has a more stable institutional framework, as a result of the Lisbon treaty, it will be able to focus, and deliver, even more on energy. First, we can ensure that there is a liberalised energy market across the EU that encourages competition and facilitates the flow of energy to where it is most needed. Secondly, we can promote greater market transparency, to help market players deal better with shocks, avoid shortages, and invest in and deliver the best cost-effective low-carbon solutions. Finally, we can develop an external energy policy that supports the EU in working with other countries to address the economic and political pressures that are having an impact on energy supply and demand, and to enable energy companies better to secure the energy that the European Union needs in future.

Albert Owen: The Secretary of State made a strong case about the UK influencing the European Union. If we have a united European policy on energy, we can influence other countries—emerging economies such as India and China. Is that not good for citizens of the UK?

John Hutton: I strongly agree.
	It is one of the surprising ironies of political life that one occasionally finds oneself quoting people with whom one does not always agree. When preparing for this debate—and I did prepare for it—I came across the following comment, which touches on my hon. Friend's point:
	"we can take pride in the distance travelled"
	in Europe,
	"But we must also remember how far we still have to go. The Community is now launching itself on a course...which must make it possible for Europe to compete on equal terms with the United States and Japan....What we need are strengths which we can only find together. We must be stronger in new technologies. We must have the full benefit of a single large market."
	That was said by Lady Thatcher in 1986, when she was Prime Minister. It would be an interesting test if we had a quick show of hands to see who on the Conservative Benches still agrees. I suspect that I know who would agree—there are a few decent Members there—but I suspect that a lot of Conservative Members have moved on.

Peter Luff: rose—

John Hutton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that he would be one of those who support what Mrs. Thatcher said.

Peter Luff: Lady Thatcher achieved the changes necessary to secure a competitive market in Europe using the existing powers. The Commission already has the powers to secure a proper price for carbon to underpin new nuclear and renewable energy. Those powers already exist. The things that we need to do can be done with existing powers. I cannot understand—although as a reasonable man, I am open to persuasion—why we need new powers to achieve objectives that we can already achieve.

John Hutton: I wish we had achieved all those objectives. It is not true to say that we have achieved them all. I made the point—it seems a long time ago—that I regard the provisions relating to energy in the Lisbon treaty as essentially consolidating. On that basis they should be supported, because they provide a simpler and clearer legal basis on which we can act.
	The difficulty for the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is that if he supports the provisions, and if he supports QMV applying intelligently in this context, he has a job of work to do to explain to people why he thinks it would benefit the European Union, even if the treaty had been ratified by the House, to go back and reopen it at some point in the future. I suspect that he does not believe that that would be in the UK's long-term national interest, so he needs to do a job of work on his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
	As I said earlier, the UK strongly supports a liberalised European energy market, one built on strong ownership unbundling, strong and effective independent regulation and greater transparency. The decline of our own gas resources and growing supply interconnection with continental Europe means that UK prices are increasingly linked to those in the rest of Europe. EU gas markets are not as transparent as ours, and that is putting upward pressure on prices as well. Our experience shows liberalisation to be the best and most effective way to deliver secure, affordable energy supplies, increased choice and improved services, better efficiency and greater investment.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) observed, independent research published today by Oxford Economic Research Associates again shows that the UK has the most competitive energy markets in the EU and the G7. That means that we ensure that no company can dominate energy production, generation or supply, that consumers can switch suppliers easily and quickly to get a better deal, and that third-party suppliers have equal and fair access to the market to help drive competition.
	That should all help to keep our energy costs as low and as competitive as possible. As wholesale energy prices rise, having the most competitive market in the European Union is the best sort of protection for UK consumers against those pressures. That is evidenced by our lower prices over the past five years, despite the recent rises, compared with the EU 15.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the Secretary of State is saying, and in theory he is correct. How, then, can he explain the fact that when one energy company puts up its prices, most of the rest follow at a respectful distance thereafter? Is that not grounds for at least investigating how energy companies are acting in our so-called liberalised market?

John Hutton: The energy companies are subjected to the full rigour of existing legislation against unfair and anti-competitive practices. If there is evidence of any breach of our competition laws, we have the right mechanism to police it and to enforce those laws. The sad truth is that energy prices have been rising across the world, and it is inevitable that some of that will be reflected in prices here in the UK. As I say, if there is evidence of anti-competitive practices, we have the tools to address them.
	The Commission has consistently credited the UK for the competitiveness of its energy market. The third package of energy liberalisation recently proposed is very much in line with the UK model, and could address many of the issues now inherent in EU markets. More transparent markets with clear, stable regulatory regimes would give market players the confidence that they need to invest, and would help reduce the costs of serving EU energy needs. Within the UK, liberalisation has led to sustained and substantial investment in new gas facilities: pipelines, LNG—liquefied natural gas—terminals and storage.
	Independent research has indicated that full market opening in Europe could increase cross-border trade in electricity by 31 per cent. and reduce prices in the EU 15 by up to 13 per cent. Total savings in the EU could be of the order of tens of billions of euros. The lack of competition in EU energy markets is costing UK and EU consumers, and it is crucial that all member states press on until we have reached our goal of a true internal market in energy. Rejecting the Lisbon treaty would set back progress in this area.

Philip Hollobone: The whole House would agree that liberalising Europe's energy market is a good thing, but it can be done under existing powers. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why signing up to the Lisbon treaty will bring that about, if it is not coming about at present?

John Hutton: The treaty provides a clearer legal basis for taking forward such work in the future. That is important, and we have important guarantees about our national reserves and strategic supplies, which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman supported. The sad truth is that we have not completed the job of energy liberalisation in the European Union, but the treaty of Lisbon will provide a clearer platform on which to take that work forward.
	We all have choices in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is expressing his support for energy liberalisation, which I am glad to hear, but the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench—which, as I understand it, is not to ratify the Lisbon treaty but to renegotiate the treaty basis of the UK's membership of the European Union—would set back progress on energy liberalisation, not speed it up. That is the choice that he and others have to address.
	As the House knows, last week the EU published its draft renewable energy directive, as part of a wider climate and energy package. The draft directive provides the framework for achieving the EU's agreed target of securing 20 per cent. of EU energy from renewable sources by 2020. It also proposes specific contributions from member states towards this goal. The Commission has proposed that 15 per cent. of all the UK's energy should come from renewable sources by 2020.
	The directive also contains a target for 10 per cent. of all transport fuels to come from renewable sources by 2020. It is crucial that this biofuels target does not undermine global sustainability in any way. That is why we will continue to argue strongly for strict sustainability criteria to be applied to the biofuels that can be used to meet that target.
	We see the proposals as a good starting point for discussion in the Council, and we believe that an EU working more effectively together can deliver the necessary action to match this ambition. We want all member states to be able to deliver their agreed targets in the most cost-effective way. We are committed to achieving whatever UK target is agreed following negotiations in the coming months, and we have made a strong start, with the announcement of a potential massive expansion of offshore wind, approval already given for the world's largest offshore wind farm, which will be located in the Thames estuary, consent granted for one of the world's largest biomass plants, which is to be built in Wales, and the launch of a feasibility study on harnessing the tidal estuary of the River Severn, the second largest project of its kind in the world.
	There are many more important renewables projects in the planning system. The successful passage of the Planning Bill currently before the House will be vital to reduce delays in making the best projects happen. However, it is obvious that we will need to redouble our efforts to reach the 2020 target. This summer, we will launch a consultation on what more we should do to boost renewable energy to meet our share of the EU 2020 target. We look forward to a serious national debate about how we can best do that, to help feed into and shape the UK's renewable energy strategy, which I hope will be published in the spring next year.
	Through the Energy Bill, we will put in place measures to strengthen the renewables obligation to triple renewable electricity from renewables obligation eligible sources by 2015, and in April the renewable transport fuel obligation will be introduced. As many hon. Members know, that will require suppliers to include 5 per cent. of renewables in their fuel mix by 2011.
	By drawing a line under institutional reform in the EU for the foreseeable future—whereas it is the position of the Opposition parties to bring it back into the full glare of publicity—ratification of the Lisbon treaty will give us the time and energy to focus on issues such as those that I have outlined, which really matter to EU members and citizens. That is why the position being taken by those on the Opposition Front Bench is so damaging to the UK's long-term national interests.

James Clappison: Is the Secretary of State making the case that the long list of renewables projects he has just told us about are dependent upon the provisions of the treaty? Presumably, planning for them began before 23 June, when the intergovernmental conference mandate was agreed.

John Hutton: No. I know that my speech has been a long one, and perhaps the thread of it may not be as clear to the hon. Gentleman as I would like. That is not my argument. It is not a rational argument, because the proposals have been produced now and the treaty of Lisbon has yet to be ratified. However, my wider argument is twofold. The treaty provisions will be an improvement on how we currently deal with energy matters in the European Union, but my fundamental argument is that if we took the advice of the Conservative Front Bench, we would set back any realistic prospect of making progress on those areas and others. That is the fundamental choice for the House, and it is why those on the Conservative Benches with common sense are not supporting the views held on their Front Bench.
	Strengthening the EU emissions trading scheme is another issue on which an outward-focused Europe can make a real and lasting difference. There is much for the UK to support—in particular, the Commission's move towards EU-wide central caps with a clear and long downward trajectory. That is a fantastic boost to our work to meet our emissions reduction targets in 2020 and beyond. The energy industry has made it clear to me and others that to invest with confidence in low-carbon energy production, they need the long-term certainty that a strengthened EU ETS can bring to the carbon market. That is one of the many reasons why the Commission's proposals on the ETS are so important.
	The International Energy Agency estimates that carbon capture and storage has the potential to contribute up to 28 per cent. of global carbon dioxide mitigation by 2050, and will be crucial in moving towards a low-carbon economy. The EU's proposed framework for the regulation of carbon dioxide storage is a necessary step towards the commercial demonstration and future deployment of CCS across Europe. The framework will provide valuable support for our work on a domestic regime, on which the House had a useful debate on Tuesday night.
	As many hon. Members will know, global demand for coal is due to increase by 73 per cent. by 2030, driven mostly by the energy requirements of China and India. The support of the European Union and members states' commitments to demonstrate CCS would add weight to the work of tackling emissions from developing countries. The Commission's plans for a network of EU demonstrations would include measures to share knowledge about those demonstrations with countries outside the EU, which will be of critical importance. I hope that the UK's project, for which we launched a competition in November last year, will form a full part of those activities.

Ian Taylor: I know that that competition is for post-combustion carbon capture, but I remind the Secretary of State that the merits of pre-combustion, pre-emission carbon capture are equally worth while. If this country is not going to have a project involving that, will he at least stimulate the European Union to spend some research funds on such a project?

John Hutton: I do not dismiss the importance of considering a variety of different carbon capture and storage technologies. In this country, we have to make a decision about the resources that we have available—that is, basically, to do one project here in the UK. Our clear legal advice was that to run an effective competition—and to have one, and one only—it was best to have a competition involving similar technologies that could properly be compared with one another.
	I hope that there is scope for pre-combustion CCS demonstration projects to emerge from the European Union's commitment to organise 12 demonstration projects in the next few years. We have chosen post-combustion, for good and strong reasons. It is probably the technology that will have the greatest impact in China and India, and it is where we have to focus our support.
	Finally, engagement with producer and transit countries, old and new, at European level, is crucial to UK and European energy security. Although pipelines that flow into central Europe from the east may currently have little impact on existing UK energy supplies, as our energy markets become more integrated, the work done to develop diversity of supply in one part of the EU will increasingly boost energy security across the whole European Union. An EU dedicated to addressing global challenges rather than debating internal reform can speak with a stronger voice and establish a more powerful collective position on energy issues at international level—for example, in the permanent partnership council with Russia.

Rob Marris: To draw those two threads together, is not the Opposition suggestion that we could do this anyway, without the treaty, an example of looking through the wrong end of the telescope? My understanding is—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that nothing in the Lisbon treaty would prevent the kind of initiatives mentioned by my right hon. Friend that the Government are already taking. Furthermore, there are elements to the treaty that, if the treaty is ratified across the EU, would enable this country and other member states to do even more—the sort of international co-operation to which my right hon. Friend has just referred.

John Hutton: I agree. This debate is about energy; the wider benefits to the UK of ratifying the Lisbon treaty are clear and compelling, and have been identified by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and many other members of the Government. However, today we are considering energy. If there is cross-party support for the concept of energy liberalisation, the last thing we should do is to punt the Lisbon treaty into the long grass. That would simply make it harder for the United Kingdom and the European Union to make the progress that sensible and intelligent people want them to make.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend referred to projects being made available to China and India, as they are significant energy-consuming markets. Is there also an intention to share knowledge about new technologies for energy conservation and production with developing nations that currently have no energy profile at all, but which need energy to realise a decent standard of living for their citizens?

John Hutton: Yes, there is. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is taking that work forward. The EU is taking forward a climate change partnership project with China. We have to make sure that all of us in the European Union make the maximum contribution to all the challenges, which essentially involve technology, but also include finance, the exchange of intellectual property rights, and technology transfer.

Steve Webb: In response to an earlier intervention, the Secretary of State promised to come back to an earlier point, but in taking so many interventions, he may have omitted to do so. Will he address the point in the Conservative amendment about the Government, having allegedly fought a separate energy article, now supporting it? Will he clarify his response on that specific point?

John Hutton: I did deal with that point— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) may not have liked my answer, but I definitely dealt with the point. To recap, I should say that we did have concerns about an energy article; there is no question about that. However, the concerns have been addressed. The importance of the Lisbon treaty in relation to energy is that there are important new energy red lines. First, we are able to protect and secure our rights over our national oil and gas reserves. Secondly, we can ensure that we can always act to ensure security of supply in emergencies. Furthermore, any new article will not impede progress in opening up EU energy markets and liberalisation. The concerns have been addressed; that is why I say to my hon. Friends, and to Members across the House, that they should support the ratification of the treaty.
	To make real progress on all these issues, the UK has to play an active role in the European Union. The EU itself must be effective and efficient, focused on discussion and action beyond its own institutions on the issues that matter. Working together for the EU and each member state's national interest in relation to energy, the treaty of Lisbon will help us achieve that. It will enable the enlarged EU to work more efficiently, and the UK to negotiate more effectively about the future role and focus of a modern global Europe.
	As I have set out, the Lisbon treaty meets the UK's red lines, protecting the UK in areas of vital national importance and helping us to focus on the big issues, including energy. It is what we said we wanted: an amending treaty, not a constitution. It is a good deal for Britain and for the whole of Europe, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to end and to add instead thereof:
	"notes that the Government demanded the deletion of a new article on energy when it was first proposed as part of the EU Constitution; further notes that the Government's explanation was that 'this provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty e.g. single market, environment'; believes that the Government's position then was right and remains valid; and accordingly rejects the Government's current policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy."
	Unlike the Secretary of State, I can start by saying, "Here's one I prepared earlier." However, once he got his script, I—and, I suspect, others in the House—sensed that his heart was not quite in what he was saying and that he had not really understood the implications of the treaty that he attempts to defend today.
	The treaty represents failure—a massive failure of political will, a total failure of negotiating wit and a complete failure to keep the promises that the Government made to the British people in what, morally, was a binding manifesto commitment to submit the treaty to a referendum. The treaty is a duplicitous document, as has readily been admitted in the media by the author of the constitution, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former Italian Prime Minister and the Belgian Foreign Minister. They have all claimed that the treaty is designed to be "illisible", "illeggibile" and whatever the Flemish is for deliberately unintelligible gobbledygook.

Peter Lilley: Double Dutch.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his astute clarification—double Dutch it indeed is.
	Blinding us with techno-babble is a deliberate ploy to obfuscate the real intentions behind the treaty, which are exactly the same as those of the constitution: gathering power into the centre of Brussels, removing flexibility and ignoring the voice of its citizens, and assuming all the rights of power, but without any of its democratic responsibilities. This is neither the outward-looking, flexible European project that we wish to see, nor the project that we were promised.
	Today it has fallen to us to examine the articles in the treaty that explicitly cover energy. In the spirit of the rest of the document, these sections are oblique, mysterious and evasive. Their very existence points to a murky process at the heart of Brussels which casts a shadow over the entire mechanism of decision making in the Commission, and, far more damaging, to the utter ineptitude represented by the Government's inability—in the phrase of one of my favourite Ministers, Lord Jones of Birmingham—to bang the drum for Britain.
	The Government have said that we need these articles to drive forward the liberalisation of the European energy market. That is a bogus argument, for one critical reason that we have already touched on today: the European Commission already has the legal base on which to make progress on liberalisation, contained in the single-market provisions and in the 40 or 50 existing directives on energy.

Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) put his finger on it when he said that even if the hon. Gentleman were right, he would have to prove something more than that the EU can do these things already—namely that what is proposed is harmful. Can he tell us, in a nutshell, what is harmful about the change that is proposed?

Alan Duncan: That is a completely bogus somersault of an argument, which I do not accept. I shall come on to why what is in the treaty is, in my view, harmful, but it does not necessarily relate to the simple aspects of liberalisation.
	Only last September, the Commission published the third tier of its liberalisation proposals. Let me confess openly that we agreed with what it said. There were two options on the table: they were, in fact, the EU's most aggressive proposals so far. If we require proof of their potential effectiveness, it is that they are vigorously opposed by the French and German Governments, neither of whom operate the liberal, free-flowing energy market that we operate in Britain.
	The Government's claim that this will all help the progress of market liberalisation looks even more specious when we consider that one of the most fundamental clauses in the foundation treaty—that on competition, which calls for an internal market
	"where competition is free and undistorted"
	—has been deleted at the behest of Mr. Sarkozy. Far the most astonishing aspect of the whole process is the fact that our feeble ministerial negotiators have returned to the House waving a sheet of paper, flushed with triumph and boasting of a new era for Europe, but with one of the most crucial planks of competition policy axed by the French, thus leaving us vulnerable to the protectionist instincts of some of the EU's member states.
	The Government's position would be comic if it were not so serious. The great paradox is that while they proclaim that these unnecessary articles on energy will drive liberalisation further, they have failed to prevent the removal of a clause that shores up one of the Union's greatest strengths since its inception: the dynamic and competitive internal market.
	Let us turn to the treaty itself, and examine further exactly what it says about energy and what it might actually mean. As always with these labyrinthine manuscripts, the devil is in the detail. The House does not have a magnificent record when it comes to scrutiny of European legislation, and true to form the Government have not given us anything like enough time for informed debate, but we must make do with what we have.
	The treaty establishes energy as a "shared competence". That is in the new articles 2A to 2E that the treaty of Lisbon inserts into the treaty of Rome. No such relationship currently exists between the Union and member states—there is merely a reference in the Rome treaty to "passing measures" on energy—so, for the sake of clarity, we should reiterate what we mean by "shared competence", lest there be any confusion about the extent to which this changes our relationship with Brussels in matters of energy.
	Reference to areas under shared competence means that the EU and member states may both adopt legislation, but that member states have freedom to do so only to the extent that the EU has not. In practice, that means that in the eyes of the EU and its legal order it is European law, not the laws of individual member states, that will enjoy supremacy. The word "supremacy" itself may not be in the treaty, but the principle of superiority— [Interruption.] The Minister for Europe may well laugh. This is the deceit about which the whole country gets so angry: ministerial assurances, if that is what that chuckle meant, count for so little. In the end it is the words in the treaty that matter, not the scoffing of the Minister.
	As I was saying, although the word "supremacy" may not be in the treaty, the principle of superiority shines through on every page of this document.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has the former Government on his side? They tabled an amendment in the Convention on the Future of Europe to delete the concept of shared competences, and they made exactly the points that my hon. Friend has been making. This Government are now trying to make the best of a bad job, but at the time—and it happened in my presence—the Government representative on the Convention moved an amendment to try to delete the concept. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his objections, and at the time there was a cross-party alliance.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As a former Minister, he knows the argument inside out. What he and I are trying to say was confirmed in June last year by the legal service of the Council of Ministers, which stated its opinion that
	"according to the Court"
	—that is, the European Court of Justice—
	"this principle"
	—of supremacy—
	"is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community".
	As was pointed out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), what is so supremely unconvincing about the Government's position is that they themselves attempted to water down the boundary quite vigorously during the early stages of the negotiations. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who as Minister for Europe was our main negotiator, lobbied to amend the treaty's definition of "shared competence" so that when the EU had acted—these were his proposed words—
	"Member States shall respect the obligations imposed on them by the relevant Union measures".
	That, in Euro-babble, means that it would have encroached less on our sovereignty. It was a very reasonable amendment which would not have precluded the action of individual member states, but the Government failed to amend the text. We are now lumbered with the deeply regrettable fact, as defined in the treaty, that member states cannot legislate if the EU has done so first, which jeopardises our ability to act independently on energy matters.
	Undoubtedly the most unsettling part of the text is in article 100, which reads:
	"Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy."
	That is a pretty extraordinary part of the treaty, and I shall return to it in a little more detail later.
	The final surprise is the insertion of an entirely new article on energy—article 176A, for those who are following this in their primers—which establishes an EU energy policy. It will allow the EU,
	"In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment",
	to pass laws in four key areas: ensuring the functioning of the market; ensuring security of supply; promoting energy efficiency, saving and renewables; and promoting the interconnection of energy networks. In that, the United Kingdom has no power of veto. The laws pass through co-decision, including qualified majority voting in the Council. Our Government have essentially written a blank cheque to Brussels, which could in certain circumstances oblige the United Kingdom, for example, to assist in the building of other member states' energy infrastructure, or even to supply them with energy during times of emergency.

Rob Marris: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has only partly read out article 100, which becomes article 122 in the consolidated text. The bit he read out was paragraph 1. Paragraph 2, which deals with emergency stuff, reads:
	"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."
	That is nothing to do with emergency supplies to other countries, desirable as that may be in some circumstances.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the treaty, because that is a supplementary, additional provision, not something that qualifies what I have just asserted. It is not a question of either/or, but of an extra "and". The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that shows the problems that we get into when this House scrutinises European legislation so poorly. We get ministerial guarantees, and a few years later judgments come at us down the track that we were told would never come our way. That is why people get so angry about the way in which European legislation—

Patricia Hewitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: Oh yes. I will happily give way to the right hon. Lady.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been following his argument with great care and looking again at the proposed new paragraph 1 in article 100. There is no requirement upon the Commission to come forward with proposals in the situation of energy supply interruption that he describes; nor is there any compulsion upon the Council of Ministers to decide to offer help in such a situation.
	In any case, the central point that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to mention is that only the Council of Ministers can make a decision under this article, and the Council of Ministers is comprised of the Governments of the member states, including the British Government, which has been extremely successful over the years in pressing policies in the interests of our country.

Alan Duncan: This is why people get so angry with politicians in this country: they do not come clean about what can be done in the name of the EU and how such powers replace powers currently enjoyed by this country, and this House of Commons. That is why I object to what the right hon. Lady has just said.

John Gummer: If we worked more closely with our European neighbours, we could cut the emissions from our present generation by 9 per cent. We have no mechanism to carry that out, either in normal circumstances or in an emergency. Surely we are talking about a perfectly sensible way of making decisions among ourselves. If every nation took the view that it will not do anything about energy unless it has total control over its own, we will not be able to meet our energy needs.

Alan Duncan: I am all for the co-operation advocated by my right hon. Friend, but not for the transfer of power that allows us to be told to do things, which are unclearly worded in this treaty. The EU has an open-ended ability to tell us what to do in areas where that is not necessary. What does that mean? It could mean that the EU will tell us what to do about strategic storage; it could allow it to intervene on what might arise as a pattern of trading and supply—Government-to-Government contracts; it could give rise to the setting up of an EU regulator; it could allow the EU to tell us what we can and cannot do with our nuclear power stations; and it could even lead to a decision on whether we have the Severn barrage or not. Whether one is for greater institutional integration or against it, the provisions make one thing perfectly clear.

Kenneth Clarke: I find this debate very difficult. The Government are finding it difficult to explain what additional powers are given by this treaty, and with great respect, my hon. Friend is finding it very difficult to establish what is wrong with either the existing powers, or the powers as re-worded. He gives a list of things that might happen. Is he not aware that article 194—I am using the consolidated treaty—spells out that
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply"?
	How on earth is that giving powers to Europe to veto the Severn barrage or to determine what sources of energy we use? It explicitly says that that is not the case.

Alan Duncan: I beg to differ with my right hon. and learned Friend in this sense: the danger of such treaties is that one can start off thinking that benign powers are granted to the EU, but one finds that they normally morph into something completely different. We are seeking clarity in the belief that the powers that already exist are sufficient. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, there are pressures in the EU already for liberalisation, and we agree about that. The current powers suffice, and that sufficiency means that we do not need what we fear may be coming in.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I give way to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Peter Luff: This is one of the central issues. With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I think that he is wrong. This is a serious and worrying power. I hope that in unusual circumstances we would do what is right to protect the overall economy of Europe, but we know how to do that. We do not need it mandated to us by the European Union. That is what this power does. The article contains the words
	"upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation".
	That is quite a broad-ranging power. It is not restricted to terrorism, as the Secretary of State suggested. It is an unnecessary transfer of power, but we should retain national discretion over what we think is right in the appropriate circumstances.

Alan Duncan: No doubt my hon. Friend's Committee will look into the matter further, but what he has said confirms the suspicions many in the House share.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The debate so far has very much been about liberalisation, and as my hon. Friend has already said, such powers exist. However, what is new in article 176A is the power to decide by qualified majority voting measures to
	"ensure security of energy supply in the Union",
	which is not necessarily about bullying Russia, but a redistributive mechanism in the European Union. We could be mandated, particularly taking into account the solidarity provision, to share—in other words, give—our energy supplies to other members of the EU, when countries outside the EU might have a better and clearer call on our resources because, for instance, they are a lot poorer. We could be giving energy to rich countries under the solidarity provision when we may wish to do something different. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our powers being circumscribed under—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In order to move on, I say once again that one has to ask why on earth, if everything is okay, the Government were so keen to remove those provisions in the course of their negotiations.

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No, I am going to move on now.
	The Government have consistently claimed that the substantial difference between the ill-fated constitution and the Lisbon treaty rules out the requirement for a referendum. Luckily, both documents are readily available in the Vote Office, so it is possible to waste a few hours searching for any disparities. Alternatively, one could simply review the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, which simply states baldly that the two documents are "substantially equivalent". I was going to have some fun pointing out the equivalences in more detail, but in the area of energy, the real significance lies in what has been sneaked into the Lisbon treaty that was not in the constitution. What we see are not substantial revisions but additional provisions. Thus the only respect in which it is not the same is where it has been made much worse.
	For example, in article 122 of the constitution that I have in front of me, we read:
	"Without prejudice to any other provisions provided for in this Treaty, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products".
	In article 100, "acting by qualified majority" becomes
	"in a spirit of solidarity".
	Article 100 also adds the coda
	"notably in the area of energy",
	by which the drafters almost certainly mean primarily in the area of energy.
	Let us return to the phrase "spirit of solidarity", which also appears in new article 176A. Again, let us make the terms absolutely clear to the House. That provision mandates the Council to redistribute energy across the bloc during times of crisis. A gas dispute in Bavaria could ultimately lead to gas rationing in Birmingham. If there is an interruption in the supplies from the Gulf, the Commission can override our contracts. It can cut off our supplies from Milford Haven and send them to Ingolstadt, or divert our liquefied natural gas from the Isle of Grain to Novo Mesto.  [Interruption.] The Minister may mock, but the point is not ridiculous because the words of the treaty are what matters.

Doug Henderson: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the positive contribution of the European Union means that, if there is a shortage of gas or other form of energy in Birmingham, it might be helpful to have a little assistance from Bavaria? The point of the treaty is to create a climate in which it is easier for Europe to share its burdens and difficulties, which will thus improve the welfare of us all in Europe.

Alan Duncan: Perhaps I am one of the few hon. Members who can say that I worked for many years in the energy markets. Our confidence should lie in properly working, liberal energy markets, not in intergovernmental decisions about changing the patters of supply. I therefore disagree with the hon. Gentleman—

Rob Marris: Casuistry.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman wishes to accuse me of casuistry and I am happy for him to attempt to do so.

Rob Marris: Of course, it is casuistry when the hon. Gentleman talks about, on the one hand, the normal functioning of energy markets—in which I am well aware that he worked for many years—and on the other, a potential crisis in the European Union. He should not compare apples with oranges; it is misleading.

Alan Duncan: I do not accept that it is misleading. Energy markets are capable of far more than the hon. Gentleman appreciates.

Peter Lilley: My hon. Friend, as an expert in energy, will recall that there was an energy crisis in Europe in 1972. Ted Heath, the then Prime Minister, summoned the chief executives and chairmen of Shell and BP and ordered them to divert supplies of oil from the rest of Europe to this country. They pointed out to him that, under the existing commercial law of this country, he could not so order, and that he would have to change the law. Such situations happen. Circumstances can arise in which a country would like to retain control of its resources but a higher authority might want to distribute them more widely. Surely the treaty gives power to the European Union to distribute those resources more widely when we might want to keep them to ourselves.

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. The UK could refuse to abide by the article and break what is described as the "spirit of solidarity". However, if the member state that requires assistance decides to take the matter to the European Court of Justice, which rules in its favour, the Council is obliged, under the article, to comply with the ruling. That would tie the UK in knots. Perhaps the UK wishes to abide by those rules, but it is unacceptable for the Government to bind the British people into such articles without first putting them to the public vote. To do otherwise is political cowardice and a breach of trust, given the Labour party's manifesto commitment.

Ian Taylor: The complexity of our debate shows the difficulty of putting the matter to a referendum. However, leaving that aside, does not my hon. Friend understand that the solidarity article makes huge sense for British national interest? By 2020, we will import more gas than we have indigenously. We already have an interconnector with France, which means—thank goodness—that we can tap into French, mainly nuclear-powered energy. Most of the pipelines do not start but end here. There is a vast need to ensure that no other member of the European Union holds us hostage. That is what solidarity is about and why the treaty is so beneficial.

Alan Duncan: That is what the EU is trying to do at the moment, but, ultimately, the treaty gives more power to intervene on private contracts in a commercial setting. That could cause no end of upheaval in the efficient workings of the energy markets.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) appeared to say that, if we did not adopt the article, there was a risk at some point in the future of our European partners withholding energy supplies from us and holding us to ransom. I find that incredible, given all the positive things that we say about our European partners and the spirit of solidarity in which we work with them.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is being ingenious and allows me to move on to the next part of my remarks.
	The Government say that the treaty would better equip the EU to tackle the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. They claim that it will drive forward a liberalised European energy market, benefiting not only British consumers but British companies that wish to gain a foothold in the region. We agree with them about the necessity of freeing up Europe's energy market and the impact of driving down prices and empowering our companies, but we profoundly disagree that that cannot be achieved through current or proposed EU legislation.
	It is ironic that the Government once presented the case for which I am now arguing. We are in an absurd situation, in which the Secretary of State has just eloquently defended a position against which his colleagues lobbied only a year or so ago. During the negotiations on the constitution, the former Minister for Europe desperately argued against including article 176A, stating that it was "unnecessary" because
	"all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty, e.g. single market, environment".
	That is correct. However, he went on to register his "detailed concerns" on the text, which, he said,
	"we consider may have the unintended effect of changing the boundaries of EU competence and the types of measure which will be subject to unanimity".
	Those comments are significant. They are not light concerns about single words, the colour of the ink or the commissioners' handwriting. They are "detailed concerns" about the ethic of the article. Yet we are replaying that message to a Government who have suddenly developed a case of selective memory failure. If the then Minister for Europe was worried at the time, we are much more worried to find that the Government comprehensively failed to delete the article and now compound their failure in that duty by refusing to trust people's judgment in a referendum, which they promised.
	We should have significant concerns about today's European market. France is dominated by EDF; Germany has been carved up by RWE, Eon, Vattenfall and ENBW, which own about three quarters of production and distribution capacities. Breaking the link between generators and grid operators would be an important component of the quest for liberalisation, giving European consumers more choice about their supplier and enabling our industrial leaders to grab a piece of the huge market. There are 20 million consumers in the UK who are supplied by French or German-owned companies, yet, across the channel, not a single French or German consumer is supplied by a UK-owned supplier.
	We support the measures that the Commission unveiled in September. Those measures are already possible under existing powers—the amended treaty is unnecessary to achieve them. Liberalisation is by far the most effective tool for maintaining a secure supply throughout the EU because it delivers increased diversity of routes, companies, corporate strategies and risk profiles. Liberalisation sends a powerful message to EU suppliers that, in the long term, they will profit more from an open and transparent market than from relying on a national or regional champion. The latter is the stuff of old bloc politics and we are now in a different world.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend believe that the removal of the phrase "free competition", which he mentioned earlier, from the treaty at the behest of the French Government will assist or not assist the quest for liberalisation?

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall tackle shortly. Clearly, in our opinion, it would not assist the quest.
	Here in the UK, despite liberalising some time ago, we still suffer from being Europe's last-resort gas bank. Continental suppliers buy gas from our market when they need it but they do not always sell it back to us when we need it. That partly accounts for why consumers felt the pinch in 2005 and 2006. Since 1 October, even though energy prices have risen by an average of 15 per cent., the interconnector pipe with Belgium has consistently exported more gas from us than it has imported. However, because of the total lack of transparency in our ability to scrutinise how, when and where gas flows around the region, UK suppliers have been hard pressed to respond.
	The Government have pointed to article 176A in the treaty and to the provisions on the functioning of the energy market and promoting the interconnection of energy networks as providing two important spurs to action. However, as the Government made clear in the original negotiations—and as we have repeated here—existing treaties already give the Commission the powers that it requires.
	For example, article 154 of the Maastricht treaty states that the European Community has the power
	"to promote the interconnection and interoperability of national networks"
	and, what is more, to do so
	"within the framework of a system of open and competitive markets".
	Article 155 of the same treaty enables the Community to legislate to "ensure the interoperability" of networks, and there is no individual member state veto to slow the pace of market reform. Equally, the Commission has powers on the liberalisation of services, as provided for by article 49 of the Maastricht treaty, which states that
	"restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a State of the Community other than that of the person for whom the services are intended".
	Energy is given specific precedence, as article 52 states that
	"priority shall as a general rule be given to those services which directly affect production costs".
	Finally, of course, the central foundation for action depends on the creation and maintenance of the internal market, under article 95 of Maastricht.
	The treaty of Lisbon makes no change of substance to that. Instead, the one new thing in the latest treaty is the explicit provision allowing the Union to pass laws on security of energy supply. We should be in no doubt about the seriousness of such proposals. We may not like the way the current European market operates and we may wish to use any and all opportunities to push for greater honesty in European markets; but the one thing that the Union does not need is greater institutional and centralised powers to create that.
	The existence of the provisions on energy, despite the Government's best attempts to erase them, casts a strange light on the debate that we had here last week on the Energy Bill. We said then that there was a somewhat dated feeling to the Government's renewables proposals, because we knew that the Commission would publish our targets for 2020 the very next day, as indeed it did. For renewables to achieve that 15 per cent. energy share in Britain's fuel mix, we felt that a more radical approach would be required from the Government. In a post-ratification world, the Energy Bill will not just look old-fashioned; it will be almost redundant. The treaty gives the EU a legal personality, empowering the Commission to contract on behalf of member states, which will enhance its power to conclude agreements on their behalf.
	However, our greatest concern is that the Government have not thought through the new energy articles' effects, given the long-standing EU legal principle of implied competence. As the House will know, those powers were first acknowledged in the case of Commission  v. Council, also known as ERTA, in 1971, in which the European Court of Justice held that
	"each time the Community...adopts provisions laying down common rules, the Member States no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with third countries which affect those rules"
	In other words, the ruling gives the power significantly to override bilateral arrangements. According to the court,
	"when such common rules come into being, the Community alone is in a position to assume and carry out contractual obligations towards third countries affecting the whole sphere of application of the Community legal system".
	In support of its findings, the court also invoked member states' obligation of loyal co-operation under the then article 5 EC—now article 10 EC—which allowed it to conclude that
	"to the extent to which Community rules are promulgated for the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty, the Member States cannot, outside the framework of the Community institutions, assume obligations which might affect those rules or alter their scope".
	It might be deemed unfair to have national contracts. We might have the sight, for instance, of the Commissioner for Trade visiting countries in central Asia to broker gas deals, putting the Union at odds with the fine threads of bilateral relationships that have been painstakingly woven through years of commercial and political contact. Ministers have failed to explain whether that energy article and the body of legislation that would undoubtedly flow from it would prevent the UK from concluding energy agreements with third countries, as we have already done with Norway.
	The Secretary of State has argued as a passionate pro-European today and on other occasions, saying that we cannot hope to deal with the massive environmental challenges on our own, in isolation in Europe, and by "sniping from the sidelines", as he put it. Indeed, today he used the phrase "10 years of isolation", "separateness" or something like that—his exact words can be seen in the record. Just to be clear, there is nothing in what we have said that compromises our ability to work multilaterally to combat, for instance, climate change. Quite the contrary: Britain under the Conservatives will work constantly and closely with the Union to help ensure that we drive down our emissions across the region and to shore up our security of supply.
	We are happy that the Union's emissions trading scheme has created a framework for a carbon price. The framework is currently not as effective as it could be, but at least the architecture is in place. We still think that an effective underpinning of the EU emissions trading scheme by a carbon tax may be the best way of stabilising the price of carbon, or at least underpinning it, thereby maintaining investor confidence in both nuclear and renewable over the long term. However, the treaty could throw our ability to act independently into difficulty, if under the disguise of "shared competence" the Commission assumed powers over energy taxation, using it as a bridge for greater authority over fiscal matters.
	Before finishing, I should like to return to the deletion of that key phrase "undistorted competition", which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned earlier.

John Hutton: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's argument is based on a lot of ifs, buts and maybes. Perhaps it would help if I clarified one point to which he has mistakenly alluded a number of times in his speech. The measures under article 176A, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has referred, that maintain full member state control over the exploitation of national energy resources would have primacy over any power under qualified majority voting to maintain the functioning of the market. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed that and has failed to acknowledge the status of article 176. In relation to his point about implied competence, I take it from what he has said that the future of any renegotiation of our membership of the European Union under a possible Conservative Government would depend upon those fundamentals being renegotiated as well. How does he think that will allow him to work more closely with the European Union on energy liberalisation in future?

Alan Duncan: The reference to "resources" refers to such things as oil and gas within the sovereign boundaries of a country. That is completely different from any reference to, and control of, supply.

John Hutton: Let me again quote to the hon. Gentleman the article that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe cited:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".

Alan Duncan: But not necessarily a member state's control over those supplies, which is exactly what we are debating today. The history of European legislation in this country is that whereas the House and the country are assured that there are certain boundaries to such powers, those boundaries inevitably move and the powers creep forward. That is the concern with this treaty, as with so many others.

William Cash: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Alan Duncan: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) first, which may give my right hon. and learned Friend the advantage of a counter-comment.

William Cash: I just thought it might be helpful to point out that the explanation just given by the Secretary of State—and, if I may say so, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—does not fully explain what is going on. I do not have time to go through all this in an intervention, but the bottom line is that there are many provisions that are without prejudice to other provisions, and there about six in sequence that ultimately take us back to the approximation and harmonisation of laws in the internal market. In fact, it is quite clear that the Secretary of State is misunderstanding the position. I am sure that he will have an opportunity to explain later on.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and, in the spirit of party solidarity, I shall now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).

Kenneth Clarke: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and explain what it meant. A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) was trying to challenge the view being taken by the Minister—and, embarrassingly, also by me—on these energy clauses, by invoking a court ruling on the primacy of European law that predates British membership of the European Union, and which was the main subject matter of debate when we first joined the Union in 1972. Ever since then, people have attempted to make my blood run cold by suggesting how this ruling might be used in various bizarre circumstances. Surely it is not the policy of our party to reopen the basic principles of the primacy of Union law. Furthermore, as the ruling has not been used to stop our agreements with Norway or anyone else in almost 30 years, why on earth does my hon. Friend think that the majority of European Governments are now going to start to use the rules on primacy of European law in a way that would be hostile to our interests?

Alan Duncan: I would never want the blood of my right hon. and learned Friend to run cold. We enjoy his good cheer. To summarise my argument, I believe that powers that are unnecessary should not be included in legislation. Enough already exists to cope with any kind of energy co-operation that we need. The vagueness—and, consequently, the almost unlimited scope—of these powers gives us cause for concern. The basis for that concern is the experience of the past few decades, which has shown that powers that we were told would hardly ever be used—or only narrowly used—have ended up being broadly used and changing the nature of our powers compared with those of the EU.
	That is the concern that underlies so much of what is in this treaty, and in those that have gone before it. I have not been in the House as long as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, but even I can remember that, from the Maastricht treaty onwards, the track record has been that the promises made in this House do not turn out to be true in practice on the ground thereafter. That causes a lot of angst, political distress and disapproval of politics in general among the broader electorate.

John Hutton: rose—

Alan Duncan: I will give way once more to the Secretary of State, then I will race to the finish.

John Hutton: We all look forward to that. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an example of how the current provisions on energy have been misused in the way that he has described?

Alan Duncan: The whole point about the current provisions is that we are actually rather happy with them. That is why we would prefer to stick with them and not muddy the waters by going into completely new territory—if I may mix my metaphors—by including them in the treaty.
	I was about to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere on the deletion of the key phrase "undistorted competition". This is a critical point, and the Government's actions on this have been somewhat embarrassing. Throughout this whole process, there has been a palpable sense that the Government think that they have got away with it, that they have somehow fooled us, and that they have won.
	The phrase that has been removed, following considerable pressure from Paris, is now covered in a separate protocol. But, to the trained eye, this is a bit of a fudge. Some of the seminal competition cases that have come before the European Court of Justice—and, indeed, some of the defining competition legislation—make direct reference to this clause, and some extremely distinguished European lawyers and academics have stated that this move will have a very damaging impact on EC competition law.
	Mr. Sarkozy—now the great champion of our former Prime Minister's bid to become President of the EU—who was thought to be the architect behind the excision of the phrase, has admitted quite openly that he wants to tinker with anti-trust policy. Immediately after his election, he said:
	"I believe in competition as a means and not an end in itself."
	He also said:
	"This may also give a different legal direction to the Commission, that competition is there to support the emergence of European champions, to carry out a true industrial policy".
	France, which has every reason to oppose any measures to unbundle its tightly controlled power sector, can use this important concession to circumvent the Commission's powers to break up monopolies.
	The Government say that they wish to be professionals in the centre of Europe, but this abject failure has exposed them as amateurs. They say that these new clauses in the treaty will improve the Commission's efforts to create greater competitiveness, but they have signally failed to retain a key structural phrase that will uphold exactly that aim. The Government might brag, but the brutal truth is that they have been outclassed, outgunned and outmanoeuvred. As a result, Britain has been ill-served by this Labour Government.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I observe, while not decrying spontaneity, that the convention of notifying us in advance of a willingness to take part in the debate has not been exhibited on all sides? It is helpful if such notification can be given, because, if a debate is oversubscribed, the Modernisation Committee encourages the Speaker to consider putting a time limit on speeches. So we are flying by the seat of our pants in this debate, and priority will be given to those who did notify us in advance.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to appear for the first time in these debates on the European Union. They coincide with the 400th anniversary of the writing of the authorised version of the Bible under King James. Listening to some of the contributions and interventions, I have the feeling that if those authors in Jerusalem Chambers had been making similar points, they would probably still be sitting there, 400 years on.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who has considerable experience of the energy markets, although it might be some time since he gave up working in them to enter politics. Perhaps the world has moved on since then. He spoke of the Government's position on this paper being oblique, mysterious and evasive. He also cited Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and I must reveal my age by telling the House that I had lunch with Mr. Giscard d'Estaing at Chamallières on the day he became President of France in 1974. Listening to the various references to him over the past few months has given me indigestion, although that indigestion has been delayed for some 30 years. Most of the comments on Mr. Giscard d'Estaing from the Conservatives have been self-serving, and they consistently overlook the fact that he has said that, while the treaty was about 80 per cent. similar, the red lines organised and agreed to by the British Government make it a different treaty. I shall not be tempted to explore whether this is the same or a different treaty, because if I did, I, like the authors of the King James Bible, would still be here many years from now.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made a number of points, which I am trying to assimilate. The one thing that strikes me when I listen to Conservative Members in this debate is that they give the impression that we must be a very small nation state with about 3 million citizens and have no say whatever on what happens in the European Union. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is no longer in his place, made reference to that. In a speech in Quebec, Winston Churchill said of the Germans:
	"What kind of people do they think we are?"
	What kind of people do the Conservatives think we are when we are dealing with the European Union? We are not softies, and we are not here to be pushed over. We are here to play a significant role in the European Union. That is what this amending treaty is about and what we are about.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman cited Sir Winston Churchill on these matters. Churchill also said that we should be "associated but not absorbed" in relation to the European Community.

Stuart Bell: I do not think that Sir Winston Churchill was talking about the European Union in 1942, but he did say that the price of freedom was "eternal vigilance". I would commend such vigilance to the Conservative party in looking at this treaty, as vigilance has certainly been given another meaning in these debates.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton also talked about the sufficiency of the powers in existing treaties. He said that they were sufficient, but the fact is that it is rather like driving a car at 70 mph: if we take the foot off the accelerator, the car will slow down over a period of time. There are now 27 member states in the European Union, so it cannot be governed entirely on the basis of existing treaties. That has been looked into very carefully by many people, including many experts, which is why the amending treaty is before us now.
	The hon. Gentleman amused the House—I am not sure whether he intended to—when he spoke about gas rationing from Bavaria to Birmingham. He also referred to gas from Milford Haven but, as he will know, it is supplied from Qatar. At the risk of extending this debate, can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having to tell the Government of Qatar that instead of their vessels on the high seas going to Milford Haven, they should be diverted to Bavaria?  [Interruption.] I am trying to be courteous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the face of some of the oddest and most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard put in the House. I will nevertheless try hard to stay courteous. The hon. Gentleman knows because of his experience in the Gulf that such a fanciful suggestion has absolutely no meaning at all.
	Reference was also made from the Back Benches to the shortages in 1972. By my reckoning, that is some 35 or 36 years ago. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) needs to know that that was before we even joined the Europe Union. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who I am glad to see is still in his place, talked about solidarity. He rightly pointed out that solidarity is in the national interest. We have no interest whatever in not being "solidaire", if I may use the French word, with the European Union. What kind of country are we to be if we cannot be solidaire with our European partners in this interconnected world?

Alan Duncan: In a way, the hon. Gentleman's attempt to point out the absurdity of diverting an LNG ship headed to Milford Haven from Qatar poses the other side of the question. What would or could be enforced by the EU in the spirit of solidarity to iron out difficulties of energy supplies other than intrusion in private contracts of that sort?

Stuart Bell: Under no circumstances would the European Union, which believes in a liberal economy and free competition—I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's views on undistorted competition in a few minutes—wish to interfere with private contracts. This has been put to the hon. Gentleman before, but repetition has considerable merit when it comes to dealing with the Conservatives. Article 176A states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member States's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	If the Opposition concentrated on the serious matters posed by the treaty instead of trying to invent a whole series of fanciful forecasts of what might happen in the future, we would be able to have a better debate.

Peter Luff: I hold the hon. Gentleman in high regard, but as Chairman of a Select Committee I am obliged to rise above the party political hurly-burly and attempt to view these issues objectively. As far as I can see and with the best will in the world, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is wrong. The treaty really does give significant power to Europe. For example, when Russia cuts off gas supplies to east European countries, that is precisely to do with what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) suggested. I believe that we should leave it to the discretion of national Governments to decide what is appropriate in the circumstances, rather than hand over further competence and power to the centre.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I noted his earlier intervention about Russia. I will deal with that and his point about giving powers away a little later. As we all know, we have never given powers away to Europe; rather, we have pooled our power. Back in 1972, Edward Heath talked about pooled sovereignty and we are still talking about pooled sovereignty today. We have never given a single power away to Europe.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that by pooling our powers, we in fact get greater powers than we would have had if we merely held them to ourselves? One of the ways we get things wrong is that we always invent ways in which we, Britain, might have to do this or that, without ever remembering that there are 26 other members who would, if we were in difficulty, have to be part of the overall pooling of powers and help.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree entirely with what he says.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made much of the phrase "undistorted competition" and the fact that President Sarkozy had wished to modify it in the present treaty. He also made scathing—or passing—references to the protocol, quoting what President Sarkozy said. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his wide reading, will have got round to studying the report of Jacques Attali on the state of the French economy, which calls for free competition and the opening up of the French economy, and which has been accepted by President Sarkozy. He will see a modified attitude towards competition within the European Union and beyond. It should also be noted that President Sarkozy was opposed to entry negotiations with Turkey on certain chapters, but when he became President, he quietly dropped that opposition.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. On the issue of competition policy, is he aware that the excellent guide to the Lisbon treaty produced this week by the British Law Society confirms that the protocol leaves unchanged the legal treaty base in the EU for competition policy?

Stuart Bell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that, but the Conservative belief seems to be never to let the facts get in the way of an argument. If the fact is not convenient, it is set aside. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who unfortunately for me has left the debate—he and I go back a long way and I have a high regard for him—asked the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton what was going on. I have to tell him that we are going on with this treaty. Reference was also made to that indefinable future when we have a Conservative Government. At any such time as the hon. Gentleman wants to work on energy policy, he will work on it along the lines of this treaty as specified under article 176A. Conservative Members know that they will never seek to renegotiate it, but act within it. I know that, the hon. Gentleman knows that, the House knows that and I presume the country knows it, too.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe talked in his intervention about the various contracts that we have already made, which the EU could not an did not interfere with. We have made contracts with Norway, Qatar and Algeria for the supply of gas. Contracts in Bulgaria were also mentioned, which, like the others, have been freely negotiated within the EU. I thus have great difficulty understanding the Conservative position. I suppose I can understand the need they feel to push for a referendum, but my view is that the Conservatives spend too much time watching "The West Wing" on television. They come back to character, trust and all the rest of it, but it does not play at all with the public. That is a matter for them, not for me.
	The Secretary of State, in his speech and in the documents he gave us, talked about the lead that the United Kingdom has in the development of EU policy on energy. That was the fruit of the Hampton Court discussions under our presidency in 2005, which flowed through to the spring conference of 2007, and led to an energy package and energy policy for Europe approved by the Council on 8 and 9 March 2007. The principle of solidarity applies—a theme that I shall develop later.
	Energy policy, security of energy and climate change are all interconnected. There is already a single market in gas and electricity, and once again the single market flows from the single European Act of 1986, entered into by the noble Lady Thatcher. A single market exists for gas and electricity. It exists for the benefit of consumers, with competitive prices and appropriate transport and storage infrastructures. A great deal has been made of the fact that the revised European constitution—as it is called by Open Europe; we call it an amending treaty—will hand new powers over energy policy to the EU: there would be a specific legal base for EU legislation on energy, and energy would for the first time be subject to majority voting.
	As Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) said, the amending treaty extends qualified majority voting to new policy areas, and some of the new articles will be subject to QMV, reflecting existing practice for EU legislation in certain fields, including energy policy. The amending treaty will streamline and speed up decision making in a number of technical areas. The UK has always insisted on maintaining ultimate national control in the key areas of justice and home affairs, social security, tax, foreign policy and defence. The Lisbon treaty clarifies that position for the UK. Overall, the impact of QMV under the Lisbon treaty will be significantly less than, for example, under the Single European Act or the treaty of Maastricht.

John Gummer: I negotiated for a long period in the EU, so will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that one is more likely to achieve one's national interest under the mechanism of QMV than by having a veto, because all the other countries know that if they steamroller a country in those circumstances, it can be done to them? The idea of consensus that that encourages greatly defends national interests, rather than damages them.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point. He will also know that since the EU has been enlarged to 27 member states, QMV has worked well because they are all working together in a common European cause.
	One of the difficulties I have with the Conservative position—which comes through repeatedly—is its wholly defensive approach towards the EU. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Stone, who has now returned to the Chamber, has somehow managed, either single-handedly or with the help of others, to persuade more Conservative party members to take the view that he took on Maastricht so many years ago. We will see whether that eventually plays in the country, but it is a great sadness for our great nation state that the great Opposition Conservative party, with values that go back more than 100 years, has taken a position very similar to that of the Labour party under Hugh Gaitskell in 1961.

William Cash: I am all in favour of co-operation in the EU, provided that it is proper co-operation. The problem is when it invades the primacy and supremacy of the laws that are passed in this House.

Stuart Bell: I think I answered that point a few moments ago when the hon. Gentleman was briefly absent from the Chamber. We have not given any powers away to the EU. We have pooled our sovereignty and our competences, and we have done so in our national interests and in the interests of the EU as a concept and an ethos.
	We have also discussed nuclear energy. The Secretary of State referred to that; the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) intervened, and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) all had a little nibble at the issue. France and Finland will expand their nuclear energy, and the Commission declared in its energy policy for Europe that more than half the member states use nuclear energy, and that nuclear energy provides some 30 per cent. of their electricity. Decisions in this area are left to member states, as this House learned when dealing with the Energy Bill. I should, however, make the obvious point, which has to be pointed out time and again, that nuclear power does not cause carbon emissions. Therefore, it is part of the environment-friendly programme of this Government and the EU.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talked about France. Nuclear power in France produces 75 per cent. of its electricity, and nuclear power has made France the largest electricity exporter in the EU. The UK's nuclear energy debate is coming to an end with discussion on the Energy Bill but, as has been pointed out, new nuclear power stations will have a role to play in the UK's future energy mix, alongside other low-carbon sources. In the public interest, energy companies will be allowed the option of investing in new nuclear power stations, and we should take the steps necessary to facilitate that. As the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention, nuclear is not the whole answer, and the energy White Paper sets out the measures being taken to enable us to become more energy-efficient and increase the supply of energy from low-carbon sources. Nuclear energy can contribute positively to the energy mix.
	Sadly, debate on energy has for a long time been neglected within the EU. That is why the Commission President Barroso declared on 20 November 2006 that energy had been a forgotten subject that was not on the Union agenda, but that now it is back on the agenda and is also at the heart of European integration. That should be understood against a background of energy demand growing within the global economy at the same time as energy sources are being depleted. World electricity demand is expected to double by 2030—overall global energy demand will grow by 53 per cent. between 2007 and 2030.
	The Union has so far enjoyed energy sufficiency at competitive prices and supplies from a variety of sources. Like the United States, the Union is a net energy importer, with 50 per cent. coming from outside the Union, rising to 70 per cent. in the next 20 to 30 years, yet member states must compete with other nations in world markets to secure supplies. It must be said that member states are unlikely to run out of energy in the next 50 years, but that does not lessen the obligation to plan for the worst while hoping for the best, as former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy once said. We have to plan for conflict and for supply interruption—the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton touched on that. We must also plan for price variations; the Secretary of State commented on that, as did the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
	It is against that background that we can debate article 176A of the amending treaty. It addresses the framework of the internal market and acknowledges the need to secure energy supplies as well as to preserve and improve the environment. It states that the Union's aim is
	"a spirit of solidarity between Member States"
	to
	"ensure the functioning of the energy market",
	the promotion of "energy efficiency" and
	"the interconnection of energy networks."
	As the Government's document "Global Europe: full-employment Europe" acknowledged in referring to the spring European Council meeting of May 2007—also referred to by the Secretary of State—the Union leaders signed up to an ambitious package of climate change and energy proposals with the objective of putting the Union on the path to becoming the world's first competitive, energy-secure and low-carbon economy. The goal of the Union must be to create an energy policy that provides energy-supply security and efficiency, assists in the reduction of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases and links in with the Lisbon agenda. It is necessary to provide a competitive framework for the new technologies in the eco-industry that will not only enable the consumer to reduce their carbon footprint, but do so at reasonable cost.
	Notwithstanding all that is said by opponents of the amending treaty, the paradox is that the goals of energy security, environmental protection and the fulfilment of the Lisbon agenda can come about only through the action of member states. That is made clear in article 176A of the amending treaty, which was, again, referred to by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. There is no single market in energy . The market indeed lies with each member state. That was touched on by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he referred on Second Reading to the gas contract that Bulgaria has entered into with Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby also referred to Russia in an intervention on the Secretary of State. I shall discuss Russia in a moment.
	There are structural differences in the way in which member states fulfil their market requirements, and although the Union may lay down rules and regulations, the operation of them is a matter for each member state. It is true that the Commission has investigative powers within its competition competence, and that it has initiated legal proceedings in Germany against alleged infringements—I refer to the case of four electricity and generator suppliers. Any proposal to commit to further liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets of the Union could be led only by the Union, and member states would have to follow. The challenge for the Union is to urge member states along in the interests of the broader Union and in their own interests. That is the purpose of article 176A; it aims to provide a framework to those ends.
	The Union must meet its own increasing energy demand and match that with its intended constraints to safeguard the environment. Such measures include: reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions; developing hybrid cars to consume more biofuel; developing renewable energy; and, of course, resolving the debate on nuclear power. To return again to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, much is often made about security of supplies when it comes to Russia. I believe that was also touched on by the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). The question is whether too much dependence is involved in dealing with suppliers from Russia. Is the Union's dependence on Russia to the detriment of the Union?
	The Union's policy towards Russia is one not of dependence, but of interdependence. José Manuel Barroso has declared that interdependency is for the mutual benefit of both Russia and the Union, and that it requires transparency, the rule of law, reciprocity, non-discrimination and a level playing field in terms of market opening, market access and competition. In other words, interdependence means that the Union relies on Russia for a major part of its energy supply, and Russia sees foreign currency receipts from that and its trade with the European Union contributing some 40 per cent. of the Russian budget.
	However, interdependence goes beyond energy supply. The Union is Russia's major trading partner—bilateral trade reached €96.55 billion in 2004. More than 60 per cent. of Russian export revenue comes from energy—most from exports to the Union. That is true interdependence. The Union has therefore every interest in deepening its relations with Russia and maintaining its access to oil and gas through long-term contracts, facilitating security of supply, which is so paramount to the Union's industrial efforts. I have cited Winston Churchill once, and I am happy to do so again. He said that dreams are good, but facts are better. The fact is that Russia has 27 per cent. of the world's known gas reserves, in addition to its oil reserves.
	Of course, the Union imports from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has established a formal dialogue to improve communication about prices, supplies and investment. In 2003, some 23 per cent. of the Union's gas came from Russia, whereas Algeria provided 30 per cent. and Norway 25 per cent. That was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Algeria is a reliable and traditional supplier that enjoys a strategic energy partnership with the Union. I am glad that delegates from the Algerian Parliament will visit the UK Parliament, through the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at the end of February.
	The Government's policy and the amending treaty link energy policy and trade policy. The Union's aim is to integrate Algeria fully in the Union's internal market, and thus double its gas supplies to the Union. The Union has also signed an agreement with Ukraine to co-operate not only on nuclear safety, but on the integration of electricity and gas markets. The Union seeks to improve environmental standards in Ukraine's coal sector, and agreements have been signed with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. The Foreign Secretary's Bruges speech on 15 November followed in the august footsteps of the noble Baroness Thatcher. He called for an "environmental Union" and for the Union to be a "model power" in the 21st century. He also wanted it to be a low-carbon power.
	There should be some unity across the Floor of the House on the following at least: an energy policy linked to a reduction in carbon emissions; a 20 or 30 per cent. reduction from a base year of 1990, with a longer-term goal of reducing emissions to less than 50 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2050; and all that being linked to sustainable development and poverty reduction, doing one's best for the environment and marrying that with energy security.
	The Union spoke with one voice at the Bali conference in December in its search for a replacement for the Kyoto protocol. It gave world leadership to achieve these reductions in greenhouse gases. The Prime Minister added to that when he reported back from the European Council meeting in December. He said:
	"Europe must also step up funding, including funding through the World Bank, to help the developing world to shift to lower carbon growth and adapt to climate change."—[ Official Report, 17 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 597.]
	On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon quoted from Milton's "Paradise Lost". The European Union is not a paradise lost, but nor is it a paradise found. Whatever the views of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, the Union is here to stay. Europe has had centuries of fluctuating history, with its plagues, pestilence and wars, but now it has peace, prosperity and unity in diversity. The Union has chosen the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, seeking to apply that to all its citizens. The hon. Member for Stone does not seem to think it a wise principle to follow civilisation, progress and prosperity. Perhaps he will give me an alternative.

William Cash: It used to be the red flag, but now it is the European Union flag that the hon. Gentleman is waving.

Stuart Bell: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Union flag has more stars than the red flag had.
	Let us return to civilisation, progress and prosperity. The Union has sought to apply that notion to all its citizens, rich and poor and healthy and sick, including the weakest and most deprived. It seeks a liberal economy that does not conflict with, but is compatible with, a social model. I believe that those words come from the preamble, which is often derided across the Floor of the House, including by those on my own Back Benches.
	The quotation cited by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon brought to mind a quote from Henry David Thoreau, which I first heard from the lips of George Kennan during his 1957 Reith lectures—I said that I would be giving my age away during this contribution. He said that
	"there is no ill which may not be dissipated, like the dark, if you let in a stronger light upon it, but if the light you use is but a narrow and paltry taper most objects shall cast a shadow wider than themselves."
	It is to be hoped that the Government, in choosing these debates, such as this one on energy, by subject matter, will cast a stronger and better light on the operation of the Union, which is there for the benefit of all our citizens, now and in the future.

Steve Webb: It is a pleasure to follow the poetry and prose of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). He cited Churchill twice, as well as Thoreau and various other people of whom I had not heard. In the midst of that, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on a fundamental point: if we go back to the founding of the single market—I understand that the Conservative party still approves of that—we see that it implies the pooling of sovereignty. We cannot have a single market with common rules across national borders without such pooling. That must apply equally to the market for energy, but whenever the logic of being pro-single market is applied in a particular case, Conservative hackles rise and they cry, "National sovereignty!"
	It is surely impossible to have things both ways, although Conservative Members may try to do so. If we support the principle of the single market, including a single market in energy, we must accept some pooling of sovereignty. Simply to say that we do not like a treaty because it involves some qualified majority voting on the structure within which the single energy market will operate is inconsistent. If we will the end, we have to will the means.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman address the question that the Secretary of State did not deal with satisfactorily? We already have the powers necessary for a liberalised energy market. Indeed, the Government extolled the virtues of the liberalisation introduced by that great woman, Baroness Thatcher, in the Single European Act. What will this treaty enable us to do in liberalising the energy market that we cannot do already?

Steve Webb: I am happy to address that point. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who is no longer in his place, I put the same question to him the other way round. I asked him what Conservative Members were afraid of in the powers in the Bill, as it consolidates and clarifies existing powers.
	Mention was made earlier of gobbledegook and double Dutch, but as European legislation and provisions go, article 176A is admirably clear. One could show it to the average person in the street, and they would understand immediately what it was talking about. It includes the aims to
	"ensure the functioning of the energy market...ensure security of energy supply...promote energy efficiency ... and ... promote ... interconnection".
	Those are all clear and laudable aims, and putting them explicitly is better than having them brought in through the back door as environmental or economic provisions. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that in the past, some of those energy goals have been achieved using other provisions—not as a pretext but as a route to them. Surely it is better to be explicit about energy policy and its goals, and that is what the treaty does. I cannot see what the Conservatives are afraid of in clarifying the goals and adding the caveats. I have not heard a convincing explanation.

Michael Weir: Does not that point illustrate the futility of much of this debate? Although the provisions that the hon. Gentleman mentions will be put on the face of the treaty, the real argument is about liberalisation, which will be bogged down because many nations support their national champions and will not support a full unbundling of powers.

Steve Webb: The treaty states explicitly that its role is to
	"ensure the functioning of the energy market".
	I accept that that is qualified by the provision that it shall do so
	"in a spirit of solidarity between Member States".
	However, it explicitly states that the Union should work on that aim, and I suggest that that will facilitate liberalisation, not stand in its way.

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly endorse the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Beyond simply clarifying the existing powers that the Commission and other EU institutions will have, the treaty also explicitly, and for the first time, protects the sovereignty of member states in respect of exploiting their own energy resources. That is the critical point that Conservative Members completely refuse to recognise. The treaty is an improvement on existing powers, as well as a clarification of them.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. My instincts, in all matters European, are to look for subsidiarity. I seek reassurance that the national interest is being protected, and in this case that is made unusually explicit in the article. It states, as she points out, that the measures included
	"shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	Those are precisely the assurances that someone concerned about possible erosion of national sovereignty would want—and here they are. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton got extraordinarily worked up over something that appears to say everything that we would want it to say, because of his generally vitriolic attitude to the European Union rather than because of the specifics of what we are discussing.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman was right to concentrate, in his very first words, on the internal market. However, if he has studied the interaction of all the different provisions in the energy framework, he will appreciate the fact that we will end up with several potential choices within a co-ordinated legal system dominated by shared competencies that will preclude member states from being able to pursue their own energy policies. That is where the problem lies.

Steve Webb: It is clear that the issue of energy, and the related issue of climate change, must be addressed at the Europe-wide level. It is not sufficient for any member state—or any nation state, in fact—to go it alone on such matters. I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a bigger picture. Our energy policy has two goals, both of which are explicitly mentioned in article 176—security of supply and combating climate change. The very first sentence of the article says that the energy policy will operate in
	"the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment".
	Those two priorities are stated explicitly, and the advantage of that is that we can pursue our national policies in delivering them, and the European Union will also work together to deliver them.
	Issues such as emissions trading have to be agreed at a national level. We cannot address them effectively on our own. Energy policy is a classic example of something that the European Union should be doing. In many ways, the pressures that we face on security of supply and the environment make a more compelling case for European partnership and integration here than in many other areas concerning which people get exercised about the European Union.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes the same case as was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), on the subject of home affairs. It needs no great prescience to suggest that the same case will be made in forthcoming debates about foreign and security policy, the environment and climate change. Is there any area in which the Liberal Democrats do not want further integration and concession of authority?

Steve Webb: There is a hierarchy of issues. Even the hon. Gentleman will accept that some policies are best determined by local government, some by national Governments and some by pan-European bodies— horses for courses. I have no problem with saying that energy policy requires a co-operative element, which is why the European Union has an important role to play.

Peter Lilley: To paraphrase the hon. Gentleman's answer, there are no areas in which the Liberal Democrats would not concede more power to the centre.

Steve Webb: The record will show that that is an absurd comment, given what I said.
	Article 176 also states that Union policy will
	"promote the interconnection of energy networks".
	That point has not been addressed much, and I hope that the Minister will say more about what is envisaged. It is an important issue for those of us who want to see more renewable energy. The example that springs to mind is our interconnector with France, which is locked into a high nuclear proportion in its energy supply, so it generates more electricity than it needs in the summer and has to export the excess using its interconnections. Such mechanisms create flexibility in the Europe-wide energy market.

Malcolm Wicks: Given the Liberals' position of saying no to new nuclear in Britain, is the hon. Gentleman nevertheless happy to receive French nuclear-generated electricity?

Steve Webb: As the Minister knows, we operate in a Europe-wide energy market and we import nuclear electricity from France. Clearly, the long-term goal is a zero-carbon self-sufficient economy. That is the direction in which we need to head, but nobody is suggesting that we should turn off the taps tomorrow, or that we will become self-sufficient in that sort of timescale.

Edward Davey: Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that if the French taxpayer wants to subsidise electricity that the British consumer can buy in an open market, that is a very good deal for the British consumer? French taxpayers have to subsidise nuclear energy generation in France to a huge extent. We are benefiting from France's having to export it at a market price.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend has just given us the definition of the spirit of solidarity that we all want to see.

John Gummer: Do we now understand that the Liberal objection to nuclear power would be entirely removed if it were proved to be cheaper and more cost-effective than any other system, irrespective of anything else?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want us to stray too far down that route.

Steve Webb: For the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say simply that we have a range of objections, of which cost is only one.
	Returning to the treaty provisions on energy, it seems to me that there are several reasons why we should not be suspicious of greater EU involvement in energy policy, but should welcome it. First, the case for working together on climate change is more pressing than ever, given the worsening situation, and if we are to ensure that the costs of tackling climate change are fairly shared. That will not happen if individual states act in isolation; a co-ordinated effort is needed. That is why I welcome the Europe-wide measures on renewables that were announced last week. The Conservative spokesman did not make clear whether he supports Europe-wide action of that sort. That sort of measure can be very effective but it needs partnership, and the provision in the treaty will facilitate that partnership, rather than make it more difficult or require the work to be done through other provisions in other treaties. Let us be explicit and state clearly what is being provided for.
	The second reason why countries need to work together on energy policy is that we face many of the same problems at the same time. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned dependence on Russian gas, and I think that coal will be of increasing importance. The United Kingdom will not face that problem alone; many other European nations will face it as well. We may well have common answers to those problems, which might be facilitated by the treaty. We have a common need to boost renewables, which in some cases may be done better by working together than by working in isolation. We have a common interest—the Secretary of State mentioned this—in developing carbon capture and storage technology, and there is a Europe-wide initiative on that. In my view that work is far too slow, both nationally and internationally, but it will certainly not be any quicker if we all adopt the Conservative "You in your small corner, and I in mine" approach to energy policy.
	I admit that we were slightly surprised when energy was chosen as the topic for a day's debate—not because energy is not incredibly important, but because many of the provisions that we have discussed are consolidating provisions, and because one might have assumed that the Conservatives, who apparently favour free markets and a single European energy market, would be entirely in favour of the treaty's provisions in this respect.
	Let me say a word or two about the other article being discussed—article 100, which relates to exceptional circumstances where there is a problem with energy supply. The point has been well made in the debate that it is one of two paragraphs set in the context of an economic policy section, and that the second paragraph to which it is being added is about EU fiscal support for countries struggling with their energy supply. That seems to be a measure that we should welcome and encourage, not fear. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton was scaremongering in the extreme, offering all sorts of horror stories and saying that this or that could happen, but he provided no substance or evidence for that view, so it is hard to see what the problem is.
	This seems to us one of the more straightforward parts of the treaty. When I realised that I was to have the joy of a day spent debating the Lisbon treaty Bill, I dreaded the prospect of the provisions that I would have to deal with being fiendishly complex—but I was astonished to read how plain and straightforward they were. The policy objectives of tackling climate change—

Peter Lilley: rose—

Steve Webb: I am just about to conclude. The policy objectives of tackling climate change and securing energy supply seem to us entirely laudable. They are objectives on which the national interest and the European interest are in harmony, not in conflict, so rather than be hostile to them, we should embrace them.

Patricia Hewitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) and to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on an issue that is of real and growing importance to all our constituents. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom, thanks to our own liberalised energy market, has for many years been enjoying, on average, lower energy prices than those across the rest of the EU, in recent months all of us will have heard complaints from our constituents about the severe prices rises facing consumers following the wholesale price rises across the globe. At the same time, we have seen for many years the rightly increasing concern among the British public about the impact of climate change, and therefore the need to change—indeed, to reduce—our energy use.
	I intend to develop a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in his opening speech: that the need for more action in Europe on energy issues is one reason—for me, one of many reasons—to welcome the Lisbon treaty and the Bill. Some years ago, when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I presented to the House this Government's first energy White Paper. We confronted the decline in Britain's North sea oil resources; we examined the policy implications of Britain ceasing to be self-sufficient—or largely so—in energy supplies and becoming a net importer of energy; for the first time we put climate change and carbon emission reductions at the heart of our energy policy; and we argued that in future, energy policy had to be central both to our relations and actions within the EU and, more broadly, to our foreign policy.

Mark Harper: If, as we argue, the powers to liberalise energy markets are already available in the EU and what is missing is the resolve to liberalise, what in the treaty will change that lack of resolve and ensure that energy markets across Europe are liberalised in practice?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has had several goes at making that point. I shall return to it later in my speech, but the brief answer is that I have no doubt that, because the treaty clarifies powers or provisions that existed in earlier treaties in different sections and puts them together in a single energy power, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will all feel a renewed commitment and energy in relation to energy issues.
	Secondly, as I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Northavon, the new provision to protect the energy sovereignty of member states in the context of issues that appropriately should be national competences is an improvement on earlier provisions. I would therefore have expected the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) to welcome it.

Ian Taylor: On the subject of competition, does the right hon. Lady agree that the key element is to reinforce the power of the Commission? The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) is effectively that bringing that clearly into the body of the treaty reinforces the Commission's power. The one thing that I am sure my colleagues are keen on is having a stronger and more effective Commission, without which there will be no liberalisation within the European Union.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am afraid that there is a paradox—a real contradiction—at the heart of the position taken by those on the Conservative Front Bench, and by so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. The ends that they want to secure, including the liberalisation of Europe's energy markets, require a stronger Commission, as well as, in many cases, an increase in qualified majority voting within the Council of Ministers—but that is precisely what they object to. That paradox gives rise to the rhetoric that we heard, especially yesterday, about those people in Brussels imposing things on us, as if Europe were an occupying power rather than a club of which we are a leading member.
	The changes in the world of energy that we highlighted in the energy White Paper five years ago are taking place even faster than we anticipated—most notably, of course, the extraordinary growth in China, India and other emerging economies. It is not only the United Kingdom that is ceasing to be self-sufficient in energy supplies. The European Union as a whole, the United States, China itself, Japan and soon India—in other words, all the world's major economic centres—are, or shortly will be, net importers of energy.
	I can develop that argument further: 50 per cent. of the world's daily supplies of oil are internationally traded. In just 10 years' time, 70 per cent. of the globe's oil requirements will be internationally traded. Of that 70 per cent., three quarters will come from west Africa, Russia and the middle east. The position with gas is similar. There are many, many more importers and fewer exporters, and many—perhaps most—of those exporters are hardly what one would call stable democracies.
	In this world of intensifying competition—a world eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough as this interdependent world—the challenges that we face in Britain are challenges that we face in common with our fellow members of the European Union. They are, notably, challenges involving how we secure our energy supplies and how we deal with and reduce CO2 emissions. Equally, much of the action that we need to take in response to those challenges, we can take only in common with our fellow members of the European Union.
	The problem—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)—is not that we have too much Europe, but that we have too little.  [Interruption.] Let me develop the point. There is agreement on both sides of the House, even from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), that Europe's energy market is not a proper market; it is certainly not a single market—I think that I am quoting him pretty accurately on that. Instead, it is a highly fragmented market physically, but also economically and politically.
	The hon. Member for Northavon said that an essential part of our strategy across Europe to secure energy supplies in future lies in having far more interconnections. It is essential in this world of intense and intensifying competition for energy that we have as many providers of energy as possible, and that we have as many pipelines, sources and supply lines as possible. That means more interconnections and more terminals—more storage capacity—for liquefied natural gas. That in turn requires a pretty substantial amount of private sector investment, and that of course requires far more effective liberalisation of Europe's energy markets.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton himself made the point that Europe's energy market is economically fragmented. He welcomed, as I hope we all do, the Commission's proposals to liberalise the market, in particular to unbundle distribution and production of energy.

Michael Weir: How is that market to be liberalised when some of the main players in the EU, particularly France and Germany, have a totally different attitude to the idea and to the question of energy security? They see their security as built on their national champions, such as EDF and RWE. Liberalisation will happen only if those bodies are broken up and unbundled. As far as I understand it, not only France and Germany but Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Malta oppose the proposals for unbundling. Even with qualified majority voting, how does that process have any chance of success?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We will secure our goal of energy liberalisation as we have secured so many other goals in Europe—by making and winning the argument, and by ensuring that the Commission comes forward with proposals that make full use of the powers conferred on it by the original treaty, including the competition power, and those that are so helpfully clarified in the Lisbon treaty.
	Of course, the Commission's most recently published proposals stem directly from a broad strategic review of energy requirements and policy across the EU that was initiated by the Government when the UK held the presidency three years ago. Of course those proposals are not yet agreed, and of course we will argue about them. However, we have a better chance of winning those arguments not only because we are right—as I believe, and as I am sure that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) and most other hon. Members believe, too—but because we will have a clearer legal base. That is set out clearly in article 176A, which is article 194 in the consolidated text.
	The new provision, which protects subsidiarity for those issues that properly belong to member states, is another welcome aspect of the treaty. The new, helpful energy title ensures that in developing proposals for consideration by the Council and by Parliament, the Commission will concentrate on the four goals in paragraph 1 of article 194 and will not seek to intrude, as one or two of its earlier proposals would have done, on a member state's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. In other words, I believe that on energy the treaty will give us more of the right kind of Europe and less of the wrong kind of Europe.
	One of the several reasons why the treaty is known in France as la Britannique may well be that we have won so many of the arguments: we have won all those that really matter.

Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady seems to be placing great emphasis on the role of the EU in guaranteeing the security of energy for the countries of Europe. How does she explain the EU's plans for renewables, which do not include plans for nuclear energy? Even worse, they take no account of the back-up needed when the wind is not blowing. That would require Britain to have some 33 GW of capacity constantly available from conventional power stations. How does the right hon. Lady justify her argument? Surely it is nonsense—and European policy, in the main, is nonsense.

Patricia Hewitt: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will never agree on that matter. I strongly support the European Commission's proposal and welcome the fact that our Government have endorsed it. The proposals set a stretching target for Europe to increase its renewable energy supplies. Indeed, our renewable obligations in Britain, which I extended when I was Secretary of State, have helped to secure a massive increase in investment—

Nicholas Winterton: Only 1 per cent.!

Patricia Hewitt: That significant investment was not only in wind farms, but, as we have seen with the Severn barrage, in tidal power.

William Cash: Is the right hon. lady implying that she is responsible for the ridiculous idea that we could get 15 per cent. of our energy requirements from renewables?

Patricia Hewitt: I have no doubt that we can achieve a substantial increase in that regard, especially through the use of wind power. The UK is blessed with wind resources, and we also have some of the world's leading technology companies—something that I should have thought the hon. Gentleman welcomes.

Nicholas Winterton: They are subsidised.

Patricia Hewitt: The reality is that rising demand for energy, increased competition for supplies and climate change mean that all countries, including Britain, will have to find the right energy mix. We need much greater energy efficiency, and we lag behind many of our European partners in that respect. We will also need to make use of renewables, cleaner coal, oil and gas, and nuclear energy—although the latter is not for all countries, and some member states do not wish to go down that route. Different countries will use all those energy sources in different combinations, as the new treaty makes clear.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend may have heard the sedentary intervention to the effect that renewables will be subsidised, but does she agree that subsidies will be needed if we are to develop the technologies necessary for tackling climate change and carbon dioxide production?

Patricia Hewitt: I completely agree: that was the logic behind the introduction of the renewables obligation and its subsequent extension. Most renewables technologies are still too little developed to be able to stand on their own two feet in commercial terms, but the renewables obligation has pulled in the necessary investment much faster than would otherwise have been the case. That investment will help us to meet our carbon reduction targets, and to achieve the security of supply that hon. Members of all parties are worried about.

Stuart Bell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point, does she agree that the European Council of 8 and 9 March last year made it clear that decisions about the choice of energy mix, the sovereignty of primary energy sources and the use of nuclear energy are matters for individual member states?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for that clarification. He spoke earlier about Europe's dependence on Russia for so much of its energy supplies, and about Russia's dependence on earnings from its oil and gas exports. I should like to develop the points that he made a little further.
	Despite Russia's economic dependence on oil and gas exports, it is failing to make the investments that it needs if it is going to meet its own growing demand for energy as well as the demand among the countries to which it exports. In addition—and Ukraine is the most notable example of this tendency—it has succumbed to the temptation of using its oil exports for blatantly political purposes. As long as the EU remains fragmented about energy policy, both politically and economically, the danger exists that Russia will be able to pick off individual member states. Europe must therefore speak with one voice on the common interests that all its member states have—certainly in respect of energy policy, but about many other matters as well.
	We know that Russia is increasingly closed to EU investment in its energy infrastructure. Russia desperately needs that investment for its own domestic purposes, but it is denying it to its consumers and businesses. At the same time, Gazprom, one of the largest energy companies in the world, is increasing its investments in the European Union. It has investments in at least 20 European Union member states—it may well be more by now—including investments in some distribution networks. Not surprisingly, given how Gazprom is run and its close and rather murky relationship with President Putin, there are worries among our European Union partners about its growing influence within Europe's energy markets.
	It is a reflection of the strength of existing provisions, which the treaty will re-enact and clarify, that the concerns about Gazprom's growing influence have already been referred to the European Commission's redoubtable Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes. I understand that President Putin complained at a meeting with Chancellor Merkel last year about Neelie Kroes's proposed investigation of whether Gazprom's growing role could impede the liberalisation of European energy markets, and that Chancellor Merkel replied that Gazprom should consider it an honour to be treated like Microsoft. It is a reflection that we might all enjoy of how important it is to have a strong Commission with strong pro-competition powers and a Council of Ministers that uses qualified majority voting in appropriate cases.

Graham Brady: Many of us have concerns about Gazprom's strength and reach in European markets. Would the right hon. Lady go so far as to say that either the Commission or national authorities should be able to prevent Gazprom from investing in EU countries, to the extent of buying significant national energy suppliers?

Patricia Hewitt: No, I would not. Indeed, I am pretty certain that such a move would be unlawful under European Union rules, which rightly prohibit discrimination against investors on the basis of nationality. My own strong view, which is reinforced by my years at the Department of Trade and Industry, is that Britain is a shining example of an economy that has benefited from being open to foreign investment. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent statement on sovereign wealth funds.
	The right way to respond to the perfectly legitimate concerns about how Gazprom might, presumably at President Putin's behest, abuse its investments is to ensure that Gazprom, like every other investor and company, abides by European Union single market rules. The treaty—I do hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman of this—will not simply repeat the original treaty's pro-competition stance; it will clarify the legal basis for European Union action in relation to energy in a way that is wholly helpful to the cause of energy market liberalisation, which he and I both support. It will also clarify the subsidiarity of member states, on which I should think he and I also agree.

Graham Brady: We do have a degree of common ground on that point, if on nothing else relating to the treaty. However, would not article 176A give the EU legislative powers in relation to maintaining the functioning of the energy market and the security of energy supply that would enable it to legislate to prevent Gazprom from taking such a position in the market?

Patricia Hewitt: My understanding is that any action by the Commission against Gazprom would have to be taken within the framework of laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of the nationality of the investor. We might be getting into rather technical legal issues, on which I am certainly not an expert, but I am glad that I have made at least a little bit of progress with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	Before turning to my final point, I make a point that was made in an excellent bulletin from the Centre for European Reform on the matter. As it says, if Europeans are worried about Gazprom's role, they need to back the Commission's efforts to speed up liberalisation of their own gas market. To put it a little more crudely than the Centre for European Reform did, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The very powers that enable the Commissioner to examine whether Gazprom might abuse its investment are also powers which, with the support of the Council of Ministers, will enable the Commission to rule out market abuses by Gaz de France, E.ON-Ruhrgas and some of the other monopoly or near-monopoly providers in parts of the European Union.

Mark Hendrick: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the treaty will be effective in co-ordinating European energy policy and ensuring more secure sources of energy for the Union. Is it not the case that the way in which the Russian Government are using Gazprom as a tool, and the fact that they are making bilateral agreements in 20 countries of the European Union, rather than negotiating with the EU as a whole, mean that they have far more leverage than we would want them to have? Although I agree that there should be more sources of energy in Europe to guarantee the security of supply, do not those 20 agreements with EU member states put us in a difficult position?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will always be a large number of bilateral and sometimes multilateral agreements within not just Europe's market, but the global energy market. That is the nature of the contracts and relationships between different companies and different countries, but the response to the concerns that my hon. Friend and many others have expressed about Gazprom, which I share, is that the Commission itself, using its treaty powers, will be able to investigate whether Gazprom is abusing its market position in an anti-competitive way.

Ian Taylor: More than that, there is the energy charter treaty which the Russians signed up to in 1994. They accepted the legal obligations of that treaty prior to ratification. They have not ratified, but they are obliged to respect it. This regulates reciprocity of investment. The key argument that we have at present with Gazprom is that we allow it to invest in the European Union, but President Putin has steadfastly tried to renationalise the assets within Russia so that private western companies are effectively losing assets or not getting fair value for those assets.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Russian Government's action in relation to Sakhalin II is a good example of exactly that. The right response is not tit for tat—I do not think he was implying that—or to lock Gazprom out of European energy markets, even if that were legally permissible, which it is not. It would be wrong in principle, as well as unlawful in practice and damaging to the interests of our own consumers.
	We will need to go on making that argument with Russia, and we need to do so with a single voice so that individual member states, perhaps thinking that they are acting in their short-term interests, do not seek to do different deals with Russia. We need Europe to speak with one voice to Russia and to try to persuade President Putin that by blocking off western investment in his energy infrastructure he is doing enormous damage to the interests of his own consumers and his own businesses, whose demand for energy is rising rapidly and needs to rise even more rapidly if the Russian economy is to grow.
	Within the next decade or so, there is a real prospect of Russia, hitherto one of the major global suppliers of gas in particular, not having enough to meet its domestic demands, never mind the demands of those of us in the European Union.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the right hon. Lady saying that European Union countries should not, as individual national Governments and countries, enter into bilateral agreements with Russia? If she is, I should say that that would be an extremely dangerous precedent, which could be introduced in many other areas of our economy and would undoubtedly lead to a federal state of the European Union. Surely that is the logical conclusion of her argument. Furthermore, will she also tell the House how many other energy—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that interventions should be brief. Many hon. Members are waiting patiently to contribute to this debate.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is certainly misunderstanding me—whether deliberately or not, I do not know. I thought that I had made the point clearly in response to an intervention. Of course there will continue to be a whole range of bilateral—or even multilateral—agreements between companies and countries. However, Europe needs to speak with one voice on Russia's policy intentions.
	Let me conclude on a more general point, which comes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Northavon. Since its inception, European Union member states have been able to choose to pool sovereignty and work together with others in the interests of each of us. In this interesting debate it has been extraordinary to hear the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and many other Conservatives, although not all, on one hand claiming to support energy liberalisation across the European Union, and having no serious argument against the Lisbon treaty's energy provisions—as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made clear—yet on the other being absolutely determined to oppose the treaty and vote against the Bill.
	Furthermore, if and when the treaty is ratified by this Parliament and those of every other member state across the European Union, those Conservatives threaten to reject and denounce the treaty and throw into jeopardy the whole legal basis of the European Union's operation—and thus disrupt all the efforts, which they claim to support, towards energy liberalisation. That would be disastrous for our constituents' interests, for Britain and for the European Union as a whole. That fundamental contradiction in the official position of the Conservative party, which has undoubtedly allowed its anti-European prejudices to triumph over its supposed commitment to the interests of the British people, will lead the House to reject its position and, I believe, will lead the British people to reject it as well.

Peter Luff: I regard this as having been a rather unsatisfactory debate. I managed largely to avoid the debates on the Maastricht treaty, although sadly I was once called by the Whips to make a filibustering speech lamenting the then Opposition's wasting of time during the debates—there was a certain irony to that, although I managed to discharge my duty with reasonable decorum.
	I find it unsatisfactory that we should be having a Second Reading debate on energy policy that lasts for four and a half hours, followed by a Committee stage that lasts for one and a half hours. My understanding is that things would normally be the other way round: normally a Committee stage lasts three or more times as long as Second Reading. We have it the wrong way round. It is a shame that it has taken more than three hours for the first Opposition Back Bencher—and I am not only a Back Bencher, but the Chairman of a Select Committee—to make their first contribution.
	Having said that, I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). I did not agree with everything that she said—particularly her concluding remarks—but it is good to see a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry using her skill and expertise and coming back to participate in debates. The right hon. Lady set a model for other former Cabinet Ministers in joining us in that way and showing herself to be a true parliamentarian, and I thank her for that.
	There is another unsatisfactory aspect of the debate. We waited more than a year for a debate on energy policy, and then, rather like London buses, two came along together. We had an energy debate last week, we are having another this week, and the Minister of State and I are to have a third opportunity to catch the bus tomorrow, when the Minister will attend a sitting of my Committee to discuss energy prices and generating capacity. I am sure that many of these issues will be dealt with again in detail and in a very congenial forum, and a fine job I am sure the Minister will do of it.
	So far in today's debate there has genuinely been little disagreement about the objectives that we all share. It has been very much a debate about mechanisms, which has made it slightly frustrating in many ways. I must tell the Secretary of State and the Minister that I am concerned about the provisions in the treaty, although not for the reasons identified by the right hon. Member for Leicester, West and certainly not for the reasons offered by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks. He suggested that the treaty was some kind of proxy for opposition to the European Union itself, and some kind of cover for a wish to withdraw from it.
	I believe that the Government were once opposed to these provisions. They had sound, well-argued reasons for opposing precisely the provisions that they now ask us to endorse. It is a shame that they lost the negotiations on the issue, because their negotiating position was the right one for the country, but sadly they abandoned it, which is why we are in the position in which we find ourselves today.
	As for my own position, it is simply this: ever-closer union must have its limits. There are some matters that all Members, however Europhile they may be, do not believe should be transferred to the competence at the centre. The limit must come somewhere. The question is where we should draw the line, and my contention is that in the case of energy policy the line pre-Lisbon was drawn in about the right place. I believe that the treaty pushes it a bit too far.
	Why does this matter so much? All Select Committee Chairmen think that their subjects are the most important to the country, and I genuinely believe that energy policy is one of the two most important issues that the country faces. The other, for my money, is probably skills, in which we have some competence in another Department. Those are the two key issues involving United Kingdom competitiveness, and hence the United Kingdom's future ability to pay its way in the world and our long-term security.
	Mercifully, skills are not in any sense a European Union competence, and I think that that is the answer that the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) should have given when he was challenged on the point earlier. Skills are an example of the competences that we believe should remain firmly in this country.  [Interruption.] Perhaps there was no specific suggestion to the contrary, but it is a good example nevertheless, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman would have endorsed that view in any event.
	We are debating the interrelatedness of energy policy and the European Union. What is also common ground between us is that there is no way in which British energy policy can be separated from European energy policy. It cannot be, and it should not be. In fact, when I write to constituents who urge withdrawal from the European Union, I cite energy policy as a reason for not doing so. Our ability to influence the European market in gas and, in particular, electricity depends on our membership of the European Union, and it is therefore absolutely in our interests to engage in energy policy. There can be no debate about that; the debate must be about how we are to engage in that policy.
	The question I want to ask is "Do we need any new powers and competences at all?" A thought at the back of my mind suggests that we might, and I wish that we were debating it now. I think it was my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who made the point about French and German national champions, and listed other countries with a chauvinistic approach to energy policy. It is certainly true that the conduct of British energy policy is shaped very heavily by the aggressive chauvinism of, particularly, the French and the Germans. There is no doubt that the European Commission, in its magnificent battles with the national champions in the rest of Europe, is encountering a great deal of resistance to the liberalisation of the European markets that is so much in Britain's interests. It is possible that we need new powers to deal with that, but I do not think we do.

Michael Weir: Is not the crux of the new powers in the treaty the interlinking of the issues of energy security and liberalisation, given the attitudes of, for example, the French and German Governments, who exert huge influence on their own energy companies?

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The question that the House must seriously address is whether we need to pool new aspects of our sovereignty—to use the less controversial phrase of some of my hon. Friends—to achieve those objectives. I believe that existing powers are sufficient to deal with them, and we should be content to rely on them, rather than seek new ones.

William Cash: I was interested in the exchange my hon. Friend had about the French and German position. Is he aware that, this week, France and Germany will seek to prevent a forced break-up of their power companies when they unveil a joint initiative, as reported in the  Financial Times? It is precisely that problem that we are up against. It is not just a problem for the European Commission, but for the global marketplace.

Peter Luff: I was aware of that because my hon. Friend had drawn it to my attention earlier on. That development does not surprise me at all, and it is important that it is put on the record. I view with some trepidation what the development will actually entail when it is announced by those Governments.

Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that countries in Europe stand together as far as possible, even given the current difficulties? The Russians have certainly used energy as a weapon; they did so in Ukraine not too long ago.

Peter Luff: I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was here before the speech of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). She discussed at some length towards the end of her remarks—in my view, her analysis was absolutely right—the real challenges relating to Russia. It is not attracting sufficient investment in its own industry to guarantee the supply in its own marketplace, never mind its ability to export; that is the real fear about Russia. My worry about Gazprom is not so much its power, but whether it will actually have the power to sell when the time comes. I am slightly less concerned about that, although it is a big and complex subject that we do not have time to debate now.
	I am grateful to Open Europe for its extremely good briefing on this debate, which points out that this is the first time energy will be subject to majority voting in the European Union, and that is a big change. I am not against pooling sovereignty, but the question is whether we need more powers to achieve the objectives we share. I do not believe that we do. The briefing emphasises:
	"The Government said that these new powers were 'unnecessary' and that it had 'detailed concerns' about them."
	But they swallowed their concerns and gave way on every point. I have seen a document that suggests what their original negotiating position was; I heartily endorse that position, and I am sorry that they gave up on it. I do not believe that the treaty does anything helpful by way of consolidation, clarification or addition to add to the powers that we already enjoy to break up energy monopolies on the continent, which are so important with regard to our own security of supply and price. The necessary provisions are already there.
	I share with Open Europe the concern that the new energy powers will let the EU pass legislation on energy that has nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of the internal market. I cannot authenticate its figures, but Open Europe states:
	"For example, in 2002 the Commission proposed a huge increase in statutory oil reserves. The UK vetoed this at the time, but under the Lisbon treaty the UK could not block it. If the Commission were to reintroduce the proposal in future it could cost the UK up to £6 billion to implement, with ongoing costs of £600 million per year."
	The briefing points out the impact that that would have on energy prices at a time when we are deeply concerned about fuel poverty in this country. Those are real issues, but the Government have not yet satisfied me as to whether they will have an adverse impact on our constituents.
	Let us consider the three articles that concern us—I am using the consolidated text. Article 4 defines for the first time, other than in case law, the shared competences of the European Union. The helpful Library note on shared competence says:
	"In these areas Member States will have competence to adopt legislation to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. This has been interpreted by critics to mean, in effect, a back door to EU exclusive competence, giving the Union a right of first refusal with regard to competence, while Member States would only be able to do what the Union decided not to do."
	Given my view about the centrality of energy policy to this country's competitiveness and security, it worries me that the Government have yet to produce good arguments for that formalisation of the sharing of competence, with its consequent effect on this House's ability to legislate on energy policy.
	The second article, which we have already debated at some length and I have dealt with in response to an intervention, is article 122 in the consolidated text. It deals with
	"the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products".
	I have still not heard a convincing explanation of the sort of circumstances in which that power could and would be used. It is a freestanding provision, which does not relate to the second part of the article, which refers to difficulties
	"caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control",
	which is a broad definition. The Secretary of State suggested terrorism as an example, but I hope that, in those circumstances, the countries of Europe would naturally wish to do what was right and best for Europe, because that would also be in their self-interest. I do not understand the necessity for including a new power in the treaty. When I cannot understand the reason for doing something, I prefer not to do it. If there is a compelling reason for doing something, I will consider it. However, I am worried that we are adding powers for which there is no compelling need.
	Article 192 in the consolidated treaty provides that the Council can act unanimously on
	"measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply."
	That is helpful. The substantive article that we are debating—194 in the consolidated treaty—includes a subsidiarity provision, which states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources,"—
	the North sea in our case—
	"its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	That is a good, useful subsidiarity point, which I welcome.

Nicholas Winterton: How would my hon. Friend respond to the EU's scientific experts, who said of biofuels, which could cost up to £50 billion by 2020, that the policy outweighs the benefits to the individual countries that comprise the EU?

Peter Luff: I would love to get into a lengthy debate about biofuels with my hon. Friend because he makes a powerful point. I shall deal with renewables briefly towards the end of my remarks but I share his concern. We all assumed that biofuels were an unequivocally good thing, which brought unqualified benefits to our farmers and the environment, and we now realise that the matter is more complex than we first imagined. I am glad that we are having second thoughts about the subject to ensure that any biofuels that are used genuinely contribute to environmental sustainability and do not have an environmentally negative impact.

William Cash: My hon. Friend fulfils the important function of chairing the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. When we consider the duties, options and the extent of remaining choices, I hope he noted that the paragraph of article 194 that he cited ends with the important words,
	"without prejudice to Article 192(2)(c)."
	That takes us back into a labyrinth of other matters. As Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend may wish to consider in due course the legal basis for the article, and I am sure that the European Scrutiny Committee will be glad to help him.

Peter Luff: We could have great fun with that. I could almost share my hon. Friend's addiction to the nuances and niceties of the matter. He is right that the article states,
	"without prejudice to Article 192(2)(c)."
	However, article 192 provides that the Council will act unanimously, but
	"without prejudice to Article 114."
	I shall not turn back to article 114 to discover to which article it is without prejudice. Heaven knows where that would lead us.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is right that the paper trail would lead us back to the beginning and I understand his concern.
	Article 194 has four substantial provisions. One is to ensure the functioning of the energy market. We do not need such a provision because it is already implicit everywhere else. The right hon. Member for Leicester, West said that the article usefully consolidated matters, but I need to be persuaded.
	The article refers to ensuring the security of the energy supply in the EU. I believe that the British Government, not the EU, have a central role to play in that. To be fair to them, they have done many of the right things. For example, the Planning Bill is a flawed but well meaning attempt to ensure that we have generating capacity. The Government have been working closely with the Government of Qatar and other places to ensure that we can import LNG. They have done much on gas storage, albeit sometimes belatedly. Security of energy supply is for national Governments to tackle and I am nervous about action at EU level.
	The article covers promoting energy efficiency and energy saving, and developing new and renewable forms of energy. We are all in favour of that but, again, I am worried that the EU's power may be channelled in an unhelpful direction towards specific technologies.
	I would like to see member states experimenting with different technologies. For instance, I have a hobby horse about hybrid cars, which I think are bad for the environment. Because of the total carbon footprint of the cars and the recycling costs, I think that clean diesel is better for the environment than hybrid technology. Toyota has made a great play of promoting itself as an environmental company because it uses hybrid technology. There is also a reduced congestion charge for hybrid technology, which I resent because I am not sure that it is the right technology. The state, in the shape of the Mayor of London, is taking a view on a particular technology, which is not helpful.
	I worry that the energy provisions in the treaty could lead Europe to specify technologies in an unhelpful way. That is why I have some doubts, as the Minister knows—doubts, not objections—about the banding of renewable obligation certificates, because I worry that we will again be choosing technologies. However, that is a separate debate.
	The only thing that is genuinely helpful is sub-paragraph (d), which says that policy will aim to
	"promote the interconnection of energy networks,"
	which I can see is hugely important for the functioning of energy markets. I also suspect that that provision actually adds to the existing body of legislation, so I have some sympathy for that part of new article 194.
	The reason for my overall concern is that energy policy means different things to different people. When we talk about energy policy—we have seen that there is a consensus in all parts of the House—what we mean is often liberalisation of the European market, energy efficiency and renewables. However, when people talk about energy policy in eastern Europe, one word comes to mind: Russia. They have a different obsession, and understandably so—I am not making a criticism. The interests of eastern and western Europe diverge on energy policy, as do this country's interests vis-à-vis the continent. Again, I am nervous about pooling too much sovereignty, in case that is against our interests.

John Horam: My hon. Friend has mentioned Russia, which is pertinent. Is he aware that Italy and the Italian company Eni are getting together with the Russians in joint schemes, such as the southern stream pipeline, which would totally bypass western Europe and give Russia direct entry into southern Europe? That is an example of where we should be concerned not necessarily about what the British Government are doing, but about what other countries are doing.

Peter Luff: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We could discuss pipelines, which are a very political subject, at great length. However, I have not thought through the implications of the development that he described, but it is helpful that he has made that point.
	For me, there are two central things that Europe must prioritise. One is liberalisation, on which the Commission is working hard; the other is the carbon price, which is a very important mechanism. We are starting the phase 3 negotiations, and we shall see where they lead. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) drew attention earlier to Dieter Helm's concerns about the long-term carbon price. Although the Commission's heart is in the right place—phase 2 is better than phase 1, and I am sure that phase 3 will be better than phase 2—I am still worried that the time scales for the mechanism for setting the carbon price are not long enough.
	Investors are not sure—this concern has been expressed to me by potential investors in nuclear power, for example—that they can project 30, 40 or 50 years ahead, based on what the mechanism for setting the price will be. They do not know the price—they can take a view on that—but they need certainty about the mechanism. They know how oil prices are determined—it is called supply and demand, and they can take a view on that, too—but they do not know how the politics of setting carbon prices will work out. I am concerned that that remains the most important challenge for Europe, because we need a European price. We should therefore not divert attention from that crucial issue.
	Very briefly—I have spoken for too long already and many other hon. Members want to speak—I should like to discuss renewables and the draft renewable energy directive. There are lots of targets floating around, which can get quite confusing. The UK has a target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation from renewables by 2010 and an aspiration of 20 per cent. by 2020. The EU has a target for the generation of 20 per cent. of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, from which we now know that the UK's target is likely to be 15 per cent.
	That 15 per cent. target is much more challenging than the UK's existing aspiration, because it will translate into a higher figure for electricity generation, which comprises only 18.5 per cent. of the energy market, and because we do not have the policy levers to pull to produce the solar gains in other areas. The target will translate into a big demand for renewable electricity generation. When we have the Minister for Energy before the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform tomorrow—here is a clue to one line of questioning—we will be pushing him a little on what he thinks that target will mean in practice for renewable electricity generation as a percentage of total generation, because I just do not think that we can achieve it. That target—that expectation, aspiration or whatever one likes to call it—is unrealistically high and I do not think that we can meet it.
	There is some speculation that the then Prime Minister Tony Blair did not understand the difference between energy and electricity when he negotiated the figure. I understand that, because although we have energy reviews all the time, they are actually always electricity reviews. But there is a real problem here. The European Union is about to impose on us a target that I do not believe we can meet.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman talked about the carbon trading initiative in the European Union. My understanding is that, within that, there is also a mechanism for trading renewable energy through certificates of origin. So, what might happen is that the countries that are closer to meeting their targets on renewables will end up selling certificates of origin to those that are not meeting theirs, to boost their amounts.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is the way in which the mechanism would work, and I imagine that that would mean additional costs for UK energy consumers. I worry about that, but I am sure that that is exactly what will happen.
	Interestingly, the race for renewable technology can have a downside. I am told—the Minister might wish to correct me—that Holland has the highest level of onshore wind generation in the European Union. The result of that, however, is that it needs so much back-up hydrocarbon technology for when the wind does not blow that it also has the highest per capita carbon dioxide levels in the EU.
	These are difficult issues for us to resolve. Unless there are compelling reasons in the British interest not to do so, I believe that these matters should be resolved by this House and our Ministers. We have a good Energy Minister at present, and I would rather that he dealt with these matters. I do not want us to let these powers go or to pool them unnecessarily.
	I have severe reservations about the way in which this market will work. We have a lot to do to ensure that our own market will work effectively. There is news, apparently, that EDF might be about to buy Scottish Power—it is a bit of an outside chance, but it could happen—which would reduce from six to five the number of suppliers in our market and raise big questions about the competitiveness of the UK energy market.

Michael Weir: rose—

Peter Luff: Ah! The hon. Member for Angus might have some news on this matter.

Michael Weir: No, I was just going to point out that Scottish Power is already owned by Iberdrola of Spain.

Peter Luff: That is absolutely right. EDF is actually buying Iberdrola. It is a long and complicated chain of events involving a number of European energy companies but, basically, it looks as though there could be further consolidation of ownership in the British market. There are big issues facing competition in this market as well. I still think that the balance of power is about right as it stands, and I am not persuaded by the Government's case for the energy provisions in the Lisbon treaty.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). I might not agree with some of the sentiments that he expressed, but he always speaks eloquently on this issue—no doubt as a result of his chairing the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	I have listened closely for the past four or five hours to the arguments from Opposition Front-Bench Members and other hon. Members who have tried to justify our rejecting article 192 in the consolidated texts of the EU treaties as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. I believe that the amended treaty merely recognises a need to reflect a developed understanding between existing and new member states, and reaffirms existing agreements. It also takes the opportunity to assert an unequivocal position on the promotion of energy efficiency and energy saving, and on the development of new and renewable forms of energy. It is this element of the reaffirmed energy policy that I wish to discuss today.
	First, I want to refer to the recent announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. As his White Paper on nuclear power and the Lisbon treaty unequivocally state, human-caused climate change is in large part due to huge emissions of carbon dioxide. As a result, we have a moral as well as an expanding economic duty to begin converting our industries, homes and means of transportation to more environmentally friendly technologies. The House of Commons has a duty and a responsibility to debate the merits of nuclear, wind and coal power in Britain. It might be politically risky or inopportune to suggest higher energy costs in the short term, but we must consider that a down-payment on a much brighter future. That has certainly been the case for some of our renewable resources.
	We owe it to our children, and to their children, to blaze a trail to greater environmental and ecological well-being, but also to keep Britain competitive and current in the European and world economies. New technology undoubtedly offers a great market opportunity for British-based companies. Making a change to nuclear power, as the Government have proposed, will undoubtedly incur short-run costs.
	The recent White Paper estimated that assessing designs and location strategies, licensing new plants and establishing an application process will not take place until 2013, well before the construction of new nuclear plants can begin. During that time, spending on these plants will be condemned and lambasted by Opposition parties, rendering the nuclear plan a significant political liability. However, it is essential that we follow this path, but we must never under any circumstances underestimate or undervalue our desire and our need to develop other technologies.
	The Stern review of 2006 concluded that up to 1 per cent. of the world's gross domestic product should be invested each year to mitigate the worst effects of global climate change by restricting the release of greenhouse gases. The catastrophic result of saying that we will take care of it later is not simply that exotic plants and animals will die; according to Stern, global GDP will eventually suffer the immense consequences of climate change as a result of severe weather, including hurricanes, wind and flooding. Stern concluded that if we begin acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing renewable energy sources, further capping the emissions of coal plants and increasing the usage of nuclear power, we will save money later in the century. Making sacrifices now will create a much better situation in future. I believe that the UK must take a lead so it can guide its allies in America, India, China and the developing nations on these policies.
	I turn now to the challenge that faces us all in relation to the promotion of energy efficiency, energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy. So many of my constituents—

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, this is essentially a Committee stage, so is the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) in order in giving us a general dissertation on Chinese energy policy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty, let alone the detailed provisions of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are not yet in Committee. I am occupying the Chair here rather than at the Committee Table, so I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. I believe that the hon. Lady was going rather wide of the debate, but I repeat that the House is not yet in Committee.

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is the case that the motion before us relates to approving the Government's policy on the treaty of Lisbon in respect of energy provisions. It is not a debate on Britain's energy policy in the wider sense, but on the treaty provisions that relate to energy.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his remarks. Perhaps the hon. Lady will address her remarks in that light.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am dealing now with the promotion of energy efficiency, which is covered in article 197C. Some of my constituents would expect the treaty to consolidate energy security and trading markets, but that is not the main subject that focuses their minds. They want to know how we are going to use this treaty to tackle climate change, and I believe that that desire is strongest among the youngest members of our society. Schoolchildren in my constituency and members of my own family are greatly focused on that aspect of this treaty. We often talk about how Parliament can engage young people and it is clear that this is a very relevant platform for them—one that I wish to express on their behalf.
	It is this generation of young people who will without doubt have to confront the serious consequences of climate change. It is not just the young people of Europe whose lives will be affected in an unprecedented way as a result of energy utilisation. The children of developing nations such as Sierra Leone, for example—many of whom live without any energy, light or heat for cooking or manufacturing—are likely to bear the consequences of excess energy utilisation today.
	I know that the development of new and renewable forms of energy provision in the treaty will do more than just drive new technologies within the EU—in respect of which we will inevitably take a lead—as the significant investment will greatly assist developing nations that have very little access to energy sources within their countries now. We need to share with them our knowledge as well as the products of this new element in the treaty. It seems so utterly unfair that we constrain the energy utilisation of emerging countries because we have become only too well aware of the impact of unconstrained use in our own. We have to do all we can not just to find ways to generate the energy, but to be far more creative in respect of conserving the energy we have already produced. That will require technological innovations and significant public information and educational programmes, which I hope will flow from the new treaty.
	Young people must be made aware of the importance of combating climate change. Although many of my local schools have taken their own initiatives on that, climate change is not covered in the primary or secondary curricula, except for a very small intervention in geography subjects.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Lady that that is a subject for debate on day 8, rather than today.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: In conclusion, I want to emphasise that although young people have a major role to play in combating climate change now and in the future, Members of Parliament also have a duty to do that. Under the energy element, we are invited to introduce a number of new instruments in order to be in compliance with the treaty. Those instruments should lead to the extension of current initiatives in the UK, including those on controlling carbon emissions around town, such as through charging exercises and the low-emission programme that the Mayor has just introduced. It is important that this element has been included in the treaty. I welcome it and the support the House will give to the treaty today.

Ian Taylor: I shall be brief, as I know that other Opposition Members wish to contribute, and in the interests of having a balanced debate, I shall try to give them sufficient time to do so.
	I support the insertion of the energy element in the new treaty, as I have long argued that energy was insufficiently covered in existing arrangements, and having a more common EU energy policy is becoming an issue of increasing UK national importance.
	Many contributions to the debate reflect the self-confidence that has come from decades of energy self-sufficiency in this country, but the reality is that we are now rapidly getting into a state of energy insecurity. It is interesting that a consultancy firm, Inenco, says that the number of nuclear and coal plants coming out of service over the next few years make shortages likely. It believes that demand will overtake supply some time between 2012 and 2015, creating a serious generation gap. As I hope there will be a Conservative Government at that time, we should deal with this matter quickly.
	Although I support the desire to have new nuclear power stations, they will not by themselves fill the gap because they will not be ready in time. It is right that the Government are encouraging them by providing regulatory and support frameworks for investment in nuclear power stations, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has supported the Government in that. However, we face a problem, which is shared by most other EU countries, although the extent of the problem differs: there is within the EU an increasing dependence on imported energy. Rather than have a "beggar my neighbour" attitude—that is, by and large, the attitude of Members who wish there to be no more pooling of sovereignty or community engagement—we should have a constructive approach.
	That is increasingly important in the context of the world energy situation and of the way in which some of our energy is increasingly supplied. The African position is worrying for the EU as a whole. It is true that Algeria is one of the largest suppliers of its own energy to Europe, but let us consider the situation across the African continent. There is now very strong Chinese investment in, for example, energy in Angola, and the recent Gazprom negotiations in Nigeria cause serious concern about the future of the Nigerian energy supply. Uncertainties are arising, and they need to be discussed at European level.
	The increasing dependence on Russia, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, should give a pause for concern. About 25 per cent. of our energy comes from Russia, but that figure will rise to 40 per cent. by 2030, according to the Commission's figures. It is difficult to know exactly what will happen. Interestingly, Russia is the second biggest producer and exporter of oil—after Saudi Arabia. It accounts for about 12 per cent. of global production, although it has only 6 per cent. of global oil reserves, so there are a few questions marks over its continuing prosperity. There is no doubt that Russia's ability to generate huge capital reserves because its energy is being sold at elevated prices means it will dictate much of what will happen over the next few years. Given all those circumstances, we need to deal with energy coherently at the European Union level.

Adam Holloway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the treaty could have an effect on concerns about energy security, particularly in eastern European countries, and could therefore be used in such a way that the UK loses control of its own energy stocks in an emergency?

Ian Taylor: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The treaty may make it more likely that we do not lose that control.
	The situation is cause for concern because Russia is picking off individual members of the former Soviet Union and doing some alarmingly worrying deals. The Baltic states are very susceptible to that influence. A different deal with Bulgaria has just been done, and it too is of concern. It involves both Gazprom and the approval of a particular pipeline that has been mentioned earlier. We should not be unaware that the Russians are determined to ensure that there is a single source supplier of energy—gas and oil—to Europe, and that the way the pipeline has been negotiated means that for a period of years, until we find some way of bypassing it, there could be a single source. That would mean that Russia would be able to pick off members of the European Union.
	I think everyone in this House agrees that the European Union cannot allow any one of its members to be influenced by an external country. That is one of the solidarity issues that we have agreed ever since we joined the European Union. As energy is now a security issue, the danger is that some of the former Soviet Union countries that are now part of the European Union could be very vulnerable to the Soviet tactics of the Russian Government. I do not wish to name a particular country, because to do so might draw too much attention to it, but one can use one's imagination as to which countries I am discussing. We therefore need to get our act together, and the main principles of the treaty and the changes in article 176A are crucial.

William Cash: rose—

Ian Taylor: I shall, of course, give way to my long-term friend.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on the interaction between Russia and Germany, and, of course, Mr. Schroeder and Gazprom?

Ian Taylor: A lot of very worrying negotiations are going on, particularly as they affect Lithuania and Poland. They are therefore European Union matters in which we have an interest. That was one of the most helpful interventions my hon. Friend has ever made, because it confirmed my point that these are European Union matters rather than national matters. He is, of course, an expert on the treaty, but he does not always understand what he has said. Article 176A is crucial. Paragraph 1(a) states that the Union should aim to
	"ensure the functioning of the energy market".
	All four sub-paragraphs require the Commission to have strong powers, and if this treaty enforces the powers of the Commission, that is a very good thing.
	My hon. Friend raised the problems of the French and German desire to discourage unbundling. I shall quote the  Financial Times from Monday, in which the energy Commissioner stated:
	"Our main priority is that customers can choose and have an active role in the market. That will bring prices down. If you do not like your supplier you should be able to change."
	Bravo. A good Conservative like me believes strongly in an effective and powerful Commission, reinforced by the European Court of Justice, and including energy policy.
	Article 176 expresses the desire to
	"ensure security of energy supply in the Union".
	That is touched on in the points that I have just made.
	In an earlier intervention in the speech by the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) I commented on the energy charter treaty that the Russians have signed and which has recently received much attention. I hope that the Minister will have another look at that treaty, because it raises considerable concerns about energy supply and the role of the Russians, especially Gazprom. They have signed the treaty, and that requires reciprocal arrangements, including investment and other characteristics of the energy market. As the treaty is in existence, we should hold the Russians to account and perhaps ask whether it would be right for them to be given easy entrance into the World Trade Organisation before starting to honour the treaties that they have signed. I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 798, in my name.
	If we are to achieve the aim of ensuring the security of energy supply in the European Union, we have to take collective action. Article 176 also states that Union policy will
	"promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy".
	We have had those discussions and I do not need to say more about that. It is clear that each nation will have a variety of choices in how it achieves that, and that is enshrined in the treaty as a national interest.
	We have to ensure that we meet our environmental objectives, and also diversify into reliable energy sources. I am all in favour of renewable energy, but I am not entirely certain that it will provide reliability of supply. I hope that the Minister will be challenged on that in the Select Committee, which is admirably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff).
	The article also says that EU energy policy will
	"promote the interconnection of energy networks".
	That is an important issue for the EU, because if there were a problem, the Union would have to intervene. Pipelines will be a cause of increasing concern. The threat to pipelines and supply touches on another useful clarification in the treaty, about the common foreign and security policy. That is not only an external issue—for example, but not uniquely, with Russia—but a domestic or even, one might say, a European homeland security issue. In a recent Government announcement, this country has already made it clear that companies will have to pay for the military to secure the gas outlets within the United Kingdom. That does not surprise me. Indeed, we will have to go further, and there will be more obligations.
	Security of gas and oil supply through pipelines in the European Union is a British national interest. If a pipeline somewhere else is blown up, it is a problem for us if it is part of our supply. Who protects Norway? We forget that the Russians are also encroaching on the Arctic circle, and any threat to Norwegian supply would be a grave problem for us.
	This debate, which is narrowly focused on energy, indicates just how important it is for this country to start to think positively about the role of the European Union. We cannot influence such matters on our own. We cannot afford breast-beating declarations that Britain is best, or that we must look after our national interest, as if that were a zero-sum game that excluded everybody else. We are in this together, and we are in a much more insecure world. We start increasingly from the position of a lack of control over sufficient energy supplies for ourselves. We are becoming a net importer, which increases the insecurity.
	I hope that the Minister will pick up some of those points and talk positively about the benefits of the Lisbon treaty. If he is not positive about them, no wonder the public at large are confused. The treaty is a good thing for the United Kingdom. Let us cut through the cant and understand that if we play the game properly, we can have disproportionate influence. Many other countries in the EU are looking to us for that leadership.

Michael Weir: It is fitting that energy forms part of our debate, given that the whole concept of the EU grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community, but energy is one of the less satisfactory areas of the European project and, to be frank, I do not think that the proposals in the treaty will do a great deal to improve the situation. European policy swirls around the concept of liberalising energy markets and the belief that such liberalisation will lead to a better deal for consumers, but, given the recent experience of UK consumers and the swingeing energy price rises that we have suffered in our so-called liberalised market, it is at least questionable whether we are getting any real benefit from it.
	It is often argued that one of the reasons for that is the non-liberalised nature of the European market and its interaction with the UK market, especially through the gas interconnector.  The Independent put it well when, on 8 January, it reported:
	"For their short-term supplies, companies on the Continent come to the liberalised UK market where the wholesale price is significantly less than the oil-indexed gas sold on the European market. Their short-term supplies met, the European groups then hoard their stored supplies, crimping demand and driving the price up further still."
	In other words, the actions of the major European suppliers mean that prices in the UK rise. We have heard today about moves to centralise further the European companies' hold on various markets.
	The purposes of the new energy provision, article 194, are to
	"ensure the functioning of the energy market...ensure security of energy supply in the Union...promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy"
	and
	"promote the interconnection of energy networks."
	None of us would have any great problem with any of that, and we certainly do not intend to oppose this part of the treaty—it is all very much motherhood and apple pie stuff. My difficulty is that although it all looks great on paper, what is actually happening in the EU seems to me to be somewhat different.
	The Commission has been trying for some years to liberalise the markets, and in September last year it produced its third liberalisation package. The proposals consist of four documents that would amend the existing gas and electricity legislation, and a fifth that would establish a new agency for co-operation among energy regulators. The Commission's aim is clearly to remove barriers to creating a fully functioning internal energy market, which it believes will ensure open and fair competition and effective regulation, leading to lower prices for European consumers in a single European electricity grid, which it wants to have in place by January 2009. I have already expressed scepticism about whether the liberalised market truly leads to lower prices, but the real fly in the ointment of the proposal is that the Commission wants to achieve a liberalised market using the mechanism of unbundling ownership—in effect, breaking up the vertically integrated energy companies that operate on the continent and having separate ownership of generation and transmission networks.
	That is all very well in theory, but as I pointed out earlier in an intervention, several of the large European states—France and Germany in particular—are dead set against that approach, because their idea of energy security is based on the concept of having national champions in the energy market through promotion of big vertically integrated energy companies with a large element of state ownership, or at least state influence. Electricité de France—EDF—is a classic example. There is a conflict in article 194 between the idea of security of supply and the idea of liberalisation of markets, because there is no definition of how we are to achieve security of supply, and there is a fundamental difference between the UK Government's approach and the approach favoured by France and Germany, for example. In passing, it is worth nothing that the UK Government see new nuclear power stations as important for future energy security, yet the company most likely to invest in them is one in which the major shareholder is the French Government.
	It is also highly unlikely that France and Germany will agree to ownership unbundling that reduces their Governments' influence over the internal energy markets. That is doomed to failure. When I put that to the Secretary of State, he said that qualified majority voting was the key, but at the end of July last year, not only France and Germany, but Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovakia sent a joint letter to the Commission arguing that ownership unbundling should be only one of a few options. Cyprus and Malta have also expressed additional fears about that. Even with qualified majority voting, we will be unlikely to get agreement on unbundling in that way.
	As is the case with all things European, it is likely that a compromise will eventually be reached. Hopefully, it will be along the lines of what is known as the Scottish solution, which operates by separating transmission operators while leaving the integrated companies. However, being European, who knows what will come out of all this? I am interested to hear what the UK Government's position on the energy market will be if the full unbundling option does not proceed. Are we in for many years of arguing about that before we come up with a compromise?
	The provisions of the treaty will not change things, because we could do much of what is proposed by using existing legislation. We might be putting those provisions on the face of the treaty, but it will not make a great deal of difference.
	I want to raise a specific point on article 194 and its relation to article 100. Much has been said about that, and the circumstances in which help would be given to other nations. I find many of the arguments somewhat bizarre. A great deal of concern has been raised about the position of Gazprom in the European market. It is active not only in the eastern part of the European Union, but also in the western part, where it has tried to buy up transmission capacity. Indeed, at one time it was looking at Centrica.
	As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) hinted, the article gives confidence to members of the EU in the east that the west will come to their aid if Russia, or Gazprom, tries to cut off their gas supplies. Members of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—or on Trade and Industry, as it used to be called—who visited some of the eastern European countries during our investigation found clearly that that is, rightly, a serious concern for them. They see the EU as their anchor in democracy against Russia, but they are worried about the gas situation. The article is sensible because it gives them confidence that they will not be left out in the cold—no pun intended—if Gazprom does that.
	We had a brief diversion into biofuels. I remember speaking to a representative of a major oil company about the future of biofuels, and that person talked about second-generation biofuels—those that come not from palm oil or corn but from wood and wood offcuts. The representative said that they would be made in areas with large forests. Guess where that is going to be in Europe? Eastern Europe and Russia. So there is a potential problem with biofuels, too, if we do not get this right.
	No debate on energy would be complete, as I am sure the Minister will be delighted to hear, without a reference to our old friend transmission charges—something that I have discussed with him on the odd occasion. I have mentioned the discriminatory nature of transmission charges in the UK before, particularly with reference to renewable generators in Scotland. However, the subject also has a European dimension. If the Commission is serious about creating a European grid, the question of transmission charges throughout Europe will have to be addressed.
	Under the Commission's proposals, national regulators are given an obligation when fixing or approving tariffs to ensure that network operators are given incentives to foster market integration. Scottish and Southern Energy, among others, has pointed out that one of the key obstacles to effective market integration is the discontinuity in generator tariffs at national borders.
	The guidelines limit the maximum average generator charge, but that still leaves scope for massive discontinuities at national borders due to extreme locational tariffs in some member states. That is an important consideration in the UK, as the guidelines say that the average UK tariff should be €2.4 per megawatt-hour. The UK complies with that average, but that disguises a vast range of locational charging arrangements set by the national grid and approved by the regulator—in our case, by Ofgem.
	The European guidelines allow differentials, but state that a differential of €20 per kilowatt-hour would be an extreme example of locational pricing and a significant barrier to European trade. However, in the UK the difference between northern Scotland and southern England is more than €40 per kilowatt-hour—twice the extreme example cited by the European Union. If the treaty goes through, as I am sure it will, and the new electricity measures come into being, I look forward to the European Commission taking an interest in that extreme example of discriminatory pricing and overturning the UK Government's refusal to do anything about it.
	That subject is linked, too, to the new European decision on renewable energy generation. In an intervention, I mentioned the interesting fact that although the EU is now setting renewable generation targets for each member nation, there is a proposal for other countries to trade certificates of origin. That could lead to a great deal of trading of renewable energy. That could be a huge benefit, particularly in Scotland, because of the potential for renewable generation. I look forward with interest to seeing how it will be implemented in the UK.
	I realise that time is running out, and so I shall bring my speech to a close. It seems to me that much of the debate about European energy before the treaty was presented to us was about who should set energy policy—Brussels or London. In our view, both are wrong. Scottish energy policy should be controlled from Edinburgh.

Mark Harper: I shall of necessity be brief and raise just one or two points. The first is directly relevant to article 176A(d) of the treaty, and concerns the promotion of the interconnection of energy networks. One point that will be keenly felt by my constituents concerns the pipeline from Milford Haven to the national gas grid. One of my concerns is that we should ensure that local people's influence on the way in which those energy networks are put together should not be downgraded. The Minister for Energy will know that his boss, the Secretary of State, recently turned down an above-ground installation on that pipeline following an inspector's report. That was an important battle which was keenly fought by my constituents. They would not want to feel that their ability to influence the way in which those networks were put together was damaged by the treaty and its provisions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), Chairman of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, pointed out that the Government's negotiating position initially was that they did not want these provisions. They felt that they were unnecessary and argued against them. Now, they are arguing in favour of them. I do not necessarily agree with all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), but he did a better job of arguing in favour of the treaty than the Secretary of State.
	I have two questions for the Minister who will wind up the debate. First, reference was made to the clearer legal basis for liberalising markets, but how will the treaty deliver that? My second question will be of interest to all our constituents: what assessment have the Government made of the treaty's effect on energy prices here in the UK, as well as in other parts of the EU? The UK already has the most liberalised energy market, so it is not clear how liberalising markets elsewhere will help our constituents. It would be very helpful if the Minister responded to that.

Charles Hendry: This afternoon's debate has been frustrating in many ways, as has been made clear in various contributions. In part, that is the result of its structure: we have spent four and a half hours talking about general energy policy, and will have only one and a half hours to discuss the specific amendments that have been tabled. In other words, the debate has been too general and too little concerned with scrutinising the detail of the treaty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chairman of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, said that energy debates are like buses—nothing comes along for ages, then there are three in three weeks. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State surprised us by telling us that he used to be a bus driver. His speech today might be compared to how buses behave: first there was no speech at all, and then two came along at once. In fact, he did rather better without the text than with it. There was a real sense that his heart was not in his speech, and it was certainly clear that it was lacking in content. He could have covered much more ground than he did.
	At the outset, I shall set out those areas where we agree with European energy policy. Various significant aspects of energy policy demand international co-operation—tackling carbon emissions, for example, or agreeing the right level for a carbon tax and moving towards liberalised markets—but we believe, as my hon. Friend said, that the Government and the EU already have enough powers to take action in those areas.
	Some interesting contributions were made to the debate. I was pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), spoke from the Back Benches. She rightly talked about the energy gap, but that gap would be smaller now if she had taken more action and indulged in less consultation when she was in charge of the Department. We had three White Papers and two energy reviews when we should have been seeing action. The consequence is that there is panic building of gas storage facilities, and the Government are having to review the targets that they set. The original goal of 10 per cent. of energy coming from renewables by 2010 has been cut to 8 per cent., and the target of 20 per cent. by 2020 has also been reduced, perhaps to as little as 12 per cent.
	The right hon. Lady also said that we do not have too much Europe, but too little. For me, that was the quote of the debate, and perhaps it could be the slogan for the referendum campaign, if we ever get one. It is a remark that goes to the heart of the matter, so it is no wonder that she is not keen on having a referendum.
	The right hon. Lady also said that we need more pipelines, storage facilities and LNG, and she is right. However, she also claimed that the liberalisation provided by the treaty would be needed if we are to get them, and in that she is fundamentally wrong. This country has perhaps a dozen days of gas storage, whereas illiberal countries such as France, Germany and Italy have 95, 80 and 80 days, respectively. In fact, it is the countries with illiberal energy policies that have the highest proportions of gas storage facilities.
	The right hon. Lady made her most irresponsible comments when she tried to promote the treaty by spreading scare stories. Of course we must be wary of massively powerful, state-backed corporations, but it is simply not correct to say, as she did, that Russia will pick off EU countries one at a time. That is not going to happen.

Patricia Hewitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: No. I hope that the right hon. Lady will understand, but she had half an hour and I have only 10 minutes. She also tried to create a stir about Russia's investment in other countries, yet Gazprom's investment in the UK, for example, amounts to a trading arm. It buys and sells, and in that way it helps the market to work. It was therefore irresponsible of her to create confusion in the way that she did.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), also made an interesting speech, from which two things were clear. The first was that he could not think of one area in which his party would not be willing to cede more sovereignty to the EU—

Steve Webb: There are too many to choose from.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman says that there are too many to choose from, but he could not come up with one during the debate. The second problem that he had was with clarifying his party's nuclear policy. The Liberal Democrats say, "No nuclear power here, but yes, please, we'll import as much as we can through the interconnector from France." It is a fundamentally hypocritical position. They do not want nuclear power here but are happy to use cheap French nuclear power and leave the French to deal with decommissioning and waste disposal.
	The key issue in this debate is whether it is right to give the European Union greater powers to determine energy flows in times of crisis. It is a question not of interpretation of the treaty but of a fundamental and genuine difference of opinion. The change suggested is to allow the Council of Ministers the power to divert energy supplies from one country to another if it deemed it necessary in a time of crisis, and because the issue would be decided under QMV the country concerned would not be able to resist the change. It is quite legitimate for some to argue that that is the right thing to do, but overwhelmingly we Opposition Members fundamentally disagree, and that alone is a ground for a referendum.
	I ask Government Members not to misinterpret us. We are not saying that the United Kingdom Government should not help other countries that are facing an energy crisis—we have a great history as a generous nation that carries out its international responsibilities well—but it should be up to our Government and other sovereign Governments acting independently to decide whether it is right to give other countries that help. We should not be forced to do so. When my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee asked the Secretary of State to clarify the circumstances in which that might happen, the Secretary of State could not do so. He basically said, "Somebody will give you an answer on that later." So much for line-by-line scrutiny. It is simply not happening in this debate.
	Ours is not a selfish little England position; we believe that it is right for every country to have the relevant powers. That works both ways. Two years ago, when this country was short of gas—and just after the Minister for Energy said that we were awash with gas—we discovered that France was not, as we had hoped, exporting gas through the interconnector, as it is legally obliged to keep a certain amount of gas in storage for its own domestic use. Under the treaty, France could be obliged to overrule its national laws and export gas even if it does not wish to do so. It would be interesting to see that issue at the heart of a French referendum.
	The treaty's approach will penalise countries that have invested in long-term energy security. We in this country are belatedly making the investment needed to improve our gas security—we are investing in new pipelines, liquefied natural gas facilities and better gas storage facilities—but it would be quite wrong for our gas supplies to be diverted to support another country that had not taken such responsible measures unless our Government had the absolute right to decide whether to allow it.
	During this debate, there has been much discussion about what will happen and could happen. Whenever the Minister for Europe has been in the Chamber, he has scoffed from the Front Bench every time the word "could" has been used, but it is quite right that we in this House should look at what could happen under the treaty. The reason many people in this country are so disillusioned with the European Union is that they are constantly told that each treaty and new measure means one thing, but they then discover a little while down the line that it means a whole lot of other things that they were never told about. It is therefore quite right for our debate to focus on the powers that the treaty could confer. We have no legal definition of a crisis or of solidarity. The British people need to know that under the treaty, our economic security could be put at risk to solve an energy problem elsewhere in the European Union.
	The other big issue in this debate is liberalisation. I agree with the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) that the further measures proposed in the treaty are not necessary to take forward the liberalisation of European energy markets. The Secretary of State has not given us any evidence that the European Union does not currently have the power to move forwards with liberalisation. After years of no progress, we are now seeing at least some progress on the uncompetitive practices in use elsewhere in Europe. It seems bizarre that we should need a new treaty just when the European Union is beginning to show that it has real teeth.
	The treaty moves us in the wrong direction. It will remove the reference to undistorted competition, just because that suits France. It is to the shame of our Ministers that we have given in to demands arising purely from the narrow, nationalistic interest of one other country involved.
	So let us be clear: we want energy security; we want to cut carbon and we want a realistic price on carbon; we want a growth in renewables; and we want more done on fuel poverty. As we move through the Energy Bill, we will be taking the lead on those issues, and I hope that the Government will respond to the amendment that we tabled.
	The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that we are out of touch. It is strange that he says so, when we are pushing for exactly the same changes as Ministers previously called for. Let us put the matter to the test. Let us see whether we or the Government are out of touch. Let us put it to a referendum.

Malcolm Wicks: I, for one, have enjoyed the debate—

Rob Marris: What?

Malcolm Wicks: I really enjoyed the debate, and it is a pity that it must end so soon. From time to time I felt that I had stumbled into the Eurosceptic Tory class of '93, '94 and '95. I hope that the divided class will have more frequent reunions.

Peter Lilley: The arguments were the same as the Government used.

Malcolm Wicks: One of the "illegitimates" is trying to heckle me, I think.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) understands the reference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not ask the Minister to withdraw that remark, but we should bear in mind that expressions that might just be allowable in parliamentary language are not allowable as a matter of taste.

Malcolm Wicks: Of course I withdraw the remark. It was a reference to the history of humour in the House, but obviously it did not go down well in all quarters.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I had not even heard his reference to my parentage and I am not the least bit concerned about it. I just remarked that when he thought he was hearing Eurosceptic arguments, he was hearing the arguments that his own Government have been putting forward during the negotiations on the treaty.

Malcolm Wicks: I have apologised and I shall be careful about quoting former Prime Ministers in the future.
	We had good speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), and a kind of Eurosceptic vignette, if I may use that term in the House, from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper).
	The hon. Member for Esher and Walton challenged me to speak positively about the Lisbon treaty. I do speak and think positively about it, and I do so in general terms. I sometimes think we miss the wood for the trees in such debates. My parents' generation witnessed all the horrors of a divided Europe in the second world war. My grandparents' generation witnessed all the horrors and the mass murders on both sides of the first world war. I am pleased to be part of a generation that is discussing, albeit occasionally dryly, important matters such as climate change and energy, and how we can make a contribution in Britain and in Europe. I am very positive about the new Europe and Britain's role in it, and about the Lisbon treaty.
	Let us remind ourselves of the energy mix across the EU. Oil accounts for some 38 per cent. of energy supplies, gas 24 per cent., coal and other solid fuels some 18 per cent., nuclear 14 per cent., and renewables 6 per cent. and rising. Within that overall picture, the mix varies considerably by country. We have heard about France, where perhaps 80 per cent. of electricity comes from nuclear, whereas in Austria none comes from nuclear. Most of Cyprus's energy comes from oil, most of Poland's from coal. That is why the member state has to take charge of the energy mix in its own national community.
	We have heard about the increasing importance of imports. In 2004 approximately 50 per cent. of EU energy was imported, but by 2030 the figure could be as high as 65 per cent. That signifies one of the challenges. We have an increasing reliance on imports in a world where energy prices are likely to remain relatively high and where fossil fuel reserves are concentrated in relatively few regions of the world, including the middle east and Russia.
	There is the urgent need to tackle climate change; EU countries share that objective not only with each other, but with the rest of the world. For those reasons, during the UK presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2005, we put forward a plan to create a common EU energy policy, including the establishment of a common European power grid, co-operation on gas storage, exchange of information about security of supply and a strengthening of climate change policies. I shall quote another Prime Minister, this time within the bounds of propriety. The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said at the time:
	"It is important that energy policy is something that we work on together as a European Union".
	He was right. The House is well aware of our recent decision on nuclear power, our commitment to a major expansion of offshore wind power and the passage of Bills on energy planning and climate change. However, whatever action we take at home, it is surely obvious that we can achieve the most, in this interdependent and highly competitive world, when we act together with our international partners.
	Let us not pretend that it will all be easy. It would be naive to expect major players in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries or Russia to come to the negotiating table wearing kid gloves. The EU must be ready to speak, and speak strongly, with one voice on energy policy. That is not only in Europe's interest, but in Britain's best interest. We need the enlarged EU of 27 countries to be able to work effectively and efficiently to draw a line under debates about institutional reform and move on to dealing with the great issues of the day, including energy. The treaty of Lisbon will make that possible, and we should welcome it.
	I move on to the issue of oil stocks, which involve an important obligation. We are obliged to hold stocks of oil in case of severe disruption of oil supplies. That mirrors our international obligations under the International Energy Agency, of which the US, Canada, Japan and Australia are also members. The Nice treaty changed the voting on any directive concluded under that article from unanimous to qualified majority voting. It is important to emphasise that the Lisbon treaty makes no change to that.
	On the obligations to release stocks in case of severe disruption to supply, I should say that the last time that that was required was during hurricane Katrina, when the UK rightly led, under our chairmanship of the IEA governing board, in helping our friends in the United States. That was done under consensus. A number of fearful hares have run on this, so I emphasise that we have never taken action through the EU on that issue. On both times when it has been necessary, action was taken through the IEA.

Alan Duncan: Fine!

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman says, "Fine!" Unanimity—more than even QMV—has broken out on this occasion.
	We have heard a little about article 176A of the Lisbon treaty today. It provides for the EU to help manage the functioning of integrated European energy markets and ensure security of supply. However, it does not seek to move control of any nation's energy resources to the European Union. The hon. Gentleman asked what was new about the treaty. I shall quote a passage that is new—and clear, important and reassuring:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	That is new and clear.

Alan Duncan: So what?

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman says, "So what?", but he should understand the words that he says he has read—they make it crystal clear that there is no threat to our national integrity.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: With respect, I cannot; time is of the essence.
	We face critical issues and we certainly need to look forward and not go back. There are critical issues about the liberalisation of our energy markets, in respect of which the UK has led the charge, and about radical moves to a low-carbon economy, the development of renewables, progress towards clean coal, and carbon capture and storage. We are looking forward; unfortunately, many Conservative Members, although not all, are rapidly pushing the rewind button of European history. What Labour seeks to build is a modern Europe fit for the 21st century. The Conservatives, sadly, are building a squalid coalition against the treaty with, among others, the Dutch Party for the Animals. Unfortunately we have to leave them there for the time being while we, the British people and the British Government, get on with the job of confirming the treaty. It is good for Britain, and it is good for Europe.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 369.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Main Question, pursuant to Order [28 January]:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 367, Noes 169.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you are aware that among the remaining orders and notices, No. 40 was drafted by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. It is designed to give an instruction to the Committee to extend the scope of the Bill to allow a referendum on whether we should or should not be in the European Union. I seek your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order to deal with this in the Committee stage that is about to start. If not, will you guide us on how it can be amended or varied in a way that would make it more likely to be selected tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to proceed as he suggests, so I suggest that we now get on with the business before the House.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill

(Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to energy)

[2nd allotted day]

Further considered in Committee.
	[Sir Michael Lord  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Addition to list of treaties

Mark Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 204, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, inserted Article 2C TEC (TFEU), paragraph 2(i), providing for energy to be an area of shared competence; and
	(ii) '.

Michael Lord: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
	No. 152, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 147, new Title XX and new Article 176A TEC (TFEU) relating to energy; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 205, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 147, inserted Article 176A TEC (TFEU), providing for an EU energy policy; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 33, page 1, line 13, after second 'to,' insert—
	'(i) European Union competence on energy; and
	(ii) '.—

Mark Francois: Amendment No. 204 would remove energy from the list of the European Union's shared competences as set out in the Lisbon treaty. The article on shared competences is, of course, taken practically verbatim from the EU constitution. It should also surprise no one that the way the article sets out shared competences was opposed by the Government when it was proposed. As the Government noted at the time in their amendment,
	"energy is explicitly referred to here for the first time"
	as a shared competence. Yet it is clear that the current status of energy has not prevented the Commission from strongly and rightly pursuing market liberalisation in that area. The claim that the new energy provisions in the treaty are in any way needed for what has always been a cross-party view of the right place of energy policy in the EU—that it should primarily be there to ensure free energy markets—is in no way borne out by the evidence.

Mark Hendrick: If the hon. Gentleman believes in a European single market and in European energy markets, why should that not be a shared competence? We are talking about a single market so there should be a single authority overseeing it.

Mark Francois: The simple answer is that the powers already exist in the current treaty base to allow that market to operate. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall go on to illustrate that.
	The Government's original amendment goes on to note that the text working is problematic in other ways. It is "exhaustive" rather than "illustrative", failing to make it clear that
	"some of these policies...encompass both shared competence and supporting action".
	The amendment also raised concerns about the article's failure to refer the listed competence to the details of the treaty later in the text. That was an important point—and the lawyers who were advising the Government when they were negotiating in the original convention on the EU constitution were awake and doing their job.
	We agree with all the criticisms of the article that the Government made when they were arguing against the power. We also agree with another amendment tabled by the Government representative that was even more trenchant in its criticism, stating that
	"shared competences should be a residual category. They should therefore not be listed explicitly."
	Our amendment would, therefore, simply enact what was Government policy several years ago—a policy that was dropped without explanation and for no good reason. It would ensure that the status quo—whereby energy market liberalisation is proceeding, albeit not as fast as we would like—is maintained. It would ensure that the EU did not extend its powers to cover broader questions of energy policy that, in our view, should remain a matter for the member states.

Peter Bone: The Government have told us in Committee after Committee in this House that the liberalisation of European energy markets is proceeding, but the French and the Germans are not obeying the rules, and why would a new treaty make them more likely to do so?

Mark Francois: I will touch on that shortly. In the earlier debate, Opposition Members repeatedly challenged the Government to justify why they needed new powers to bring about energy market liberalisation when the Commission, which I am about to praise, has been making progress in this area—the competition directorate-general has worked very hard—under the powers available in the existing treaty base. Ministers wriggled and ducked and dived, but they never managed to give a convincing answer to that question, and we will find out whether we hear anything on it in the debate on this amendment. Thus far, they have failed to explain to the House why they need powers on energy in the Lisbon treaty to bring about liberalisation of that market, when the Commission itself believes that it already has sufficient powers, and, indeed, has recently issued new directives in that area.
	I also want to say a few words about amendment No. 205, which would strike out the new article on energy. As has already been said, the Government could not in the past have been clearer in their opposition to it. As their reasoned objection at the time succinctly stated,
	"this provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty"
	such as under the "single market" and the "environment".
	That was the Government's argument.
	This is a central fact in the debate. In their own words, the Government have admitted that the treaty adds nothing that we actually need. It brings no benefit at all. The Government were right then and are wrong now, and have yet to explain why they let this article go through in the negotiations, other than because they negotiated poorly. We do not need this to act together on the environment, an area where the European Union has an important role to play. The emissions trading scheme is far from perfect, but it is up and running, and we have not needed this treaty to do that or to reform it.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Mark Francois: I give way to the federalist wing.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making an argument that energy policy was present in the previous treaties and was being implemented in various ways. Was it then in fact, if not in name, a shared competence?

Mark Francois: I understand that in energy market liberalisation the Commission has mainly relied on article 95 of the treaty establishing the European Community, which deals with competition and markets generally. I understand that it has been using that successfully to help to bring about energy market liberalisation, and that the competition directorate-general has been quite aggressive in that regard. We do not need the new powers in the Lisbon treaty to press forward energy market liberalisation.
	We heard in the earlier part of the debate, but it bears repetition, that last September the European Commission launched the third legislative package on electricity and gas markets. Its package headline says that it will
	"ensure that all European citizens can take advantage of the numerous benefits provided by a truly competitive energy market."
	If the European Commission not only admits but boasts that it is able to achieve the goal of a truly competitive energy market in the EU—a goal that we firmly support—using only the EU's current treaties and powers, it is fatuous for Ministers to claim that this energy article is needed or that opposition to it or to the treaty as a whole shows any lack of support for or seriousness about a single market in energy. If people do not believe me, they should ring not Conservative headquarters but the European Commission and ask it.
	Article 176A is a source of concern. In particular, it is not clear to what kind of legislation paragraph 1(b), on ensuring the security of energy supply, will lead. Ministers have not been clear about that either. That was touched on earlier, but again I do not think we achieved absolute clarity.

Rob Marris: rose—

Mark Francois: On that point I give way to the hon. Gentleman. We are both veterans of Finance Bill debates, so I am pleased to cross swords with him again. Whichever bit of the document he is going to read out, would he please give us the clear reference?

Rob Marris: I may surprise the hon. Gentleman on this occasion by not reading out part of a document. The argument that I understand him to be making is one to which I referred earlier in the themed debate. He seems to be saying that the bit he seeks to remove via his amendment is redundant in the treaty. I am not sure that I agree with that argument, although I understand it. He then seems not to follow the logic of that. I think he was here when I mentioned looking through the telescope the wrong way. If the piece that he seeks to remove were included, would it put a brake on the liberalisation that the House generally agrees that we wish? I understand the argument about redundancy—as a lawyer, I perhaps like it—but looking at it in the round, one has to ask whether it is really a problem if the provision were included. He says that we can have liberalisation under existing treaties, agreements and so on—that might well be the case—but is it a problem if it is in this treaty anyway? Would there be a downside, apart from inelegant wording and redundancy?

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, and I have to tell him that there would be a problem. He ought to ask his own Front-Bench team about this, because they clearly thought there was a problem when they tried to oppose the measures so firmly in the first place. If there is no problem, why were the Government arguing to have these powers taken out of the treaty when it was first negotiated? Perhaps he would have a quiet word with the Minister in the Tea Room later.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Mark Francois: I am going to make a little progress, because other hon. Members wish to speak and we only have an hour and a half. I shall then give way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	More worrying is the effect that article 176A could have on the long-established Community doctrine of implied competence, to which reference has been made. It would not be advantageous to this country if the EU had effective sole competence to make agreements on energy supply with third countries—our energy relationship with Norway is a case in point. The principle of shared competence on energy, the new article specifically on energy and the legislation that would undoubtedly flow from that would tend to eat away at our right to conclude such agreements. At this point I gladly give way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, not least because I remember that he was present when I made my maiden speech in this House.

Mike Gapes: And it was a very good speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of energy security. Does he agree with the unanimous view of the Foreign Affairs Committee in our report on Russia, published in November last year, that we should welcome the increasing moves towards diversification of energy sources by the European Union, and any measures that we take to strengthen a coherent and more robust collective EU approach towards Russia and how it tries to use energy as a political weapon?

Mark Francois: The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee asks whether we agreed with "any measures", and that is a question in principle. The answer in principle is that we do not agree with "any measures"; we are here to debate the detail of the treaty line by line. The Chairman attempts to inveigle me, but he will have to forgive me if I do not walk into his little trap. I will say, however, that I do agree with the conclusion of the Committee's other report that, on foreign affairs, the constitution and the Lisbon treaty were almost exactly the same.
	The treaty's provisions on energy sum up much of what is wrong with the treaty as a whole. The provisions are unneeded and unwanted, and their presence is testimony to the Government's utter ineptitude at negotiating in the EU. The provisions offer no benefit to this country and neither we nor our European partners would be harmed by their rejection. They only have the potential to harm, and that is why we have tabled the amendment to reject them this evening.

Mike Gapes: I wish to make a few points about the importance of an EU-co-ordinated European energy approach. The realities of the coming decades will be such that energy will be one of the most important issues in international relations. It will be a global geopolitical issue.
	I referred in my intervention a moment ago to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on global security and Russia, which is relevant to this debate. In that report, we highlighted the fact that for many years to come, Russia will be dependent on European Union markets for its gas and oil. Russia will need to export that energy, and it will not be able to diversify sufficiently quickly in terms of exports to China and other parts of the world. Russia will depend on the currency that it will get from its sales to the European market.
	At the same time, European member states have had different approaches to energy supply. We had the controversy over the pipeline to Germany under the Baltic sea, which caused great difficulties in the relations between the German Government and the Poles and Lithuanians. Another issue is the supply of gas from southern Europe. For all those reasons, the amendments do not take account of the realities that the European Union confronts. I am therefore not in favour of the amendments and I hope that we will support the treaty as it stands. It will take us forward to a more coherent and co-ordinated approach, both in the internal market of the European Union and, more importantly, to the issues of diversification and energy security in relation to the major energy producers in the world. That does not just mean Russia; it includes how we deal with north Africa, the Gulf and the countries in the Caspian area, which are all potential sources of energy supply for the EU. The UK is rather more advantaged than some countries: we have a long-term relationship with Norway, liquefied natural gas from Qatar is coming on stream, and we will have other sources of supply. Those in central and eastern Europe are more dependent on gas and oil from Russia.

Peter Bone: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument correctly: because Germany and Poland disagreed on an energy matter, there should be a European competency that forces the European view, whatever it is, on to the nation states? Is that not an argument for a superstate?

Mike Gapes: No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. My argument is that because there are divisions within the EU, Russia is able to pick off individual EU member states, bully smaller countries and even attempt to bully some larger ones. Some countries have gone along with that to some extent. It is deplorable that the Russian Government have bullied Estonia and Lithuania. They have even bullied the UK over matters unrelated to energy, such as the British Council and the murder of Mr. Litvinenko.

Mark Hendrick: Energy is not only a green issue now; Stern showed that it is an economic issue as well. Now, because of climate change and the fact that it can also cause wars, energy is a security issue. That is why the EU acting with a shared competence on the matter is so important.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The EU united with a common voice can stand up to Russia and say that Russia's behaviour is unacceptable. Similarly, it can act in climate change and world trade negotiations and many other spheres much more effectively than the individual states alone could act. No matter how big a country—whether its population is 80 million, like that of Germany, or 60 million, like that of the UK, Italy and France—it cannot have the weight of the collective of 400 million or 500 million people. In a world where the economic focus is shifting to Asia, the only way that we as Europeans will be able to have an effective voice in this century, which will see the rise of countries such as India, China and Brazil alongside the existing US economy, is collectively, using our international networks and policies.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman's argument this evening is an argument for scrapping the borders around 27 countries and introducing the united states of Europe. That is exactly what we do not want.

Mike Gapes: And nor do I. When Baroness Thatcher was signing up to the Single European Act, which did more to scrap borders in Europe than any other action since the holy Roman empire, the hon. Gentleman should have been making that argument and voting against the legislation.

Martin Horwood: It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Michael, and rewarding to see the House of Commons at its best today. We have seen the cut and thrust of debate, with attempts to outwit and challenge Front Benchers made by Back Benchers—and that is only on the Conservative Benches.  [ Interruption. ] I interpret the absence of Back Benchers from my party as meaning that they see no need to challenge me from behind—unlike the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who suffered during the earlier debate.
	The Conservative amendments are unnecessary, because they are based on the nonsense that we have heard from Conservative Members today—that the treaty opens the way for draconian EU action on energy, crushing national interests before it. Rather closer to the mark are the remarks of WWF, the Green Alliance and the Institute for European Environmental Policy, which praise the treaty, saying that
	"It emphasises climate change and makes it easier to adopt greener energy policies."

James Clappison: Perhaps I can serve as a substitute for the Back Benchers that the hon. Gentleman does not have. Does he share my scintilla of doubt about why the Government oppose the measures that he is praising and they have put forward as a good thing?

Martin Horwood: That is not for me to answer. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Minister.  [Interruption.] I have no idea why the Government would change their position on any measure. It is up to them to answer that.
	The WWF, the Green Alliance and the Institute for European Environmental Policy called the changes in article 176 "momentous", not because it establishes the list of shared competences, but because it
	"will empower the institutions to adopt Directives and Regulations not only for the sake of the internal energy market, but also to ensure security of supply and"—
	this is key for those organisations—
	"to promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy."
	Those groups are clarifying the fact that it is the policy direction contained in the treaty which is significant. It is important to identify energy as a shared competence. No great new powers are being conferred; there is just a new and clearer direction. WWF and the others are worried that the red lines that the Government have negotiated have conceded too much. Their statement goes on to say that the new energy article
	"shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply...This limits the scope for ambitious EU initiatives on energy policy, including those with environmental goals...many measures that would be relevant from a sustainable development perspective are bound to affect the choice between different sources of energy; in fact that is their very purpose."
	Conservative Members were worried about removing descriptions of unrestricted competition, but in one sense Stern has told us to intervene in the market and influence it in a way that helps the planet and the future economy, so that proposal is not surprising.
	I support the red lines. They are important provisions and should remain, but the environmental organisations' concerns illustrate how far from reality the position of Conservative Front Benchers is, and how unnecessary the amendments are.

Graham Brady: Given that the words and provisions of the treaty do matter, especially as we are discussing them in Committee, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that article 176 would give the EU power to prevent Gazprom from buying energy providers in the EU?

Martin Horwood: There is a common misunderstanding on the Conservative Benches that shared competences mean European competences. Shared competences are clearly defined in the treaty: they are shared between the European Union and the member states. There is nothing in the treaty that suggests to me that they will be used against the interests of member states.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Martin Horwood: I would not mind getting on to the amendments— [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If hon. Members are attempting to give way, it would be helpful if they indicated clearly—yes or no. Then the Chair will know what to do. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Martin Horwood: Yes.

Mark Francois: On the shared competences, member states can continue to legislate in those areas if the EU decides not to, but if it decides that it wants to, we cannot. That is in essence what a shared competence means. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that?

Martin Horwood: The situation with qualified majority voting is not fundamentally changing— [Interruption.] There is, in effect, a shared competence now. All the treaty does is to define clearly which are the shared competences, and to make that a clearer forum for policy making. That is what the green organisations are praising, and that is the advantage of the treaty. There is not the massive shift of power that the hon. Gentleman seems to fear.

Patricia Hewitt: May I add to the hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)? The point is surely that new article 3b of the Lisbon treaty, on page 13, says:
	"Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States".
	In other words, the shared competence means that member states will act as they choose, and the Union will act only if it is required to do so because national action will not achieve the agreed objectives.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that clarification of the principle of subsidiarity, which still underlies this treaty as it did others.
	Let me move on to the amendments. It is interesting to note that the amendments tabled by Back-Bench Conservatives are more or less indistinguishable in effect from those tabled by Front-Bench Conservatives. We feared that the Europhobes would press down on the Front Bench—but they seem to have captured it.  [ Interruption. ] I shall come to the subject of whether amendments are necessary in a moment, but we agree with the thrust of the treaty— [ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have continued interruptions from a sedentary position. It disrupts the debate and I cannot always hear what is going on.

Martin Horwood: As I was saying, the amendments tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench are indistinguishable in their effect, and sometimes in their wording, from those tabled by those on the Back Benches. The Europhobia of some on the Conservative Back Benches has recaptured their Front-Bench spokesmen.
	Amendment No. 204 is a sniper amendment, which would delete the word "energy" from the consolidated text of the amended Rome treaty. In that sense, it is close to amendment No. 33. The other two amendments, Nos. 152 and 205, are blunderbuss amendments that try to take out any reference to energy wherever they can find one. All the amendments are aimed at changing the historical position. Energy was in practice a shared competence, even if it was not defined as such. It might have been shared in a rather obscure and complicated way, but the sharing of roles between the European Economic Community, as it originally was, and the member states dates back to the origins of the organisation. There was the European Coal and Steel Community—coal, after all, is a source of energy—and the European Atomic Energy Community, regardless of whether we would have agreed with that. Through Maastricht and beyond, successive Conservative Governments supported the principle that the EU was sometimes the most appropriate level at which to act on energy, while at other times the member state would be the most appropriate level. The treaty clarifies and consolidates that.
	If amendment No. 204 were to exclude energy from that consolidated and clarified list, that could be interpreted as removing energy from the list of shared competences in which it was previously included. That would not mean that we would simply go back to square one, as has been claimed, and the time before the Lisbon treaty. If we made the amendment and the treaty was passed, we would have gone back further, reversed the historical position and removed energy from the list of shared competences.
	What implications would that have? Measures such as the renewables directive would no longer be possible. It would not be possible to have the fun that we, and the Conservative Front Benchers, had with the Government about their failure to meet their original aspiration of providing 20 per cent. of the electricity supply from renewable energy. Attempts to compare and contrast the Government's policy on feed-in tariffs and renewable obligations would all have to take place domestically; we would not be able to use the European dimension in the argument, as energy would no longer be a European competence.
	Clearly that would be nonsense in an age when we need cross-border co-operation to tackle climate change, and the consolidation and security of supply in energy markets. Those effects on the energy market need to operate across all 27 nations. It would be an utterly retrograde step to repatriate the whole of energy policy. In practice, of course, that cannot happen. A treaty amended in that way belongs in some fantasy land inhabited by those on the Conservative Front Bench, because these are basically wrecking amendments.
	The amendments deal with that part of the Bill, as opposed to the treaty, that refers to the exclusion of common foreign and security policy. However, that element of the Bill is a little superfluous, as it merely restates the obvious—that a common foreign and security policy is not part of the treaty. In contrast, the things that the amendments would exclude are part of the treaty, and the legal result of accepting the amendments would be that the Bill would fail to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Peter Bone: Excellent!

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman says that that would be excellent, but I am not sure that his Front-Bench colleagues agree, as they are keeping a bit quiet. Accepting the amendments would amount to a rejection of the Lisbon treaty, and would leave no possibility that aspects of it could be renegotiated, as the Conservatives imagine.
	The simpler and more honest path for the Conservatives would be to follow the recommendation from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that we hold a referendum allowing us to say yes or no to the treaty after we have ratified it. We could honestly vote yes in such a referendum, but I presume that members of the Conservative Front Bench would campaign for a no vote in it—and so for our exit from the EU.

Nigel Evans: Let the people decide.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is right: we should let the people decide on such a matter, but to bring that about we should not use strange devices like the wrecking amendments before the House tonight.
	The process that I have set out would be less painful, and it would also protect Members on the Conservative Front Bench from the sort of attacks by the Eurosceptic and the Europhile wings of their party to which they have been subjected this evening. That is why I recommend that approach to them, and why the amendments should be withdrawn.

Stuart Bell: I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) for missing his opening remarks, but I shall read them in tomorrow's  Hansard with interest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made some comments about Russia's relationship with the EU. In that connection, may I say that I appreciate the speech that the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) made when he wound up the earlier debate? It was both sensible and wise.
	Russia is a major power. When we are talking about Gazprom, as various hon. Members have this afternoon, we are dealing with the interdependence of the EU and Russia in the energy market. It is an open market, in which buyers and sellers—producers and consumers—operate at arm's length from each other, but the following facts should be borne in mind. For example, in 2003, 58 per cent. of Russian oil exports were to the EU, as were 88 per cent. of its total natural gas exports. In addition, 22 per cent. of total net EU oil imports in 2003 came from Russia, representing 16 per cent. of all European oil consumption—that is, by members states and others. Finally, 32 per cent. of Europe's gas imports in 2003 came from Russia, representing 19 per cent. of total gas consumption by member states. Those figures show that we need to be a little cautious when we castigate Gazprom, and Russia's relations with the EU as a whole.
	Earlier, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talked about what I call the Bavarian question. That is, if there is a shortage in Bavaria, will liquefied natural gas on its way to Milford Haven from Qatar be diverted to Bavaria? If that is the case, I assure the House that Gazprom will be there much quicker.

Graham Brady: I am interested in the case that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but does he agree that, in current circumstances and on the evidence of the past couple of years, the most likely cause of a crisis in the supply of gas to Bavaria or elsewhere in continental Europe would be the fact that Gazprom had shut off the supply? Is that not why we should be concerned that supplies from this country might be diverted elsewhere?

Stuart Bell: We must get away from seeing Gazprom as a huge bogey man or bear on the international gas and oil market. Gazprom is successful because it is a paying concern, and it has no interest in cutting off supplies to Bavaria, thereby cutting off receipts to the Russian budget. I remarked earlier that some 47 per cent. of the Russian budget comes from oil and gas exports to Europe and trade. In an interdependent world, it is not in Gazprom's interest to cut off gas supplies to Bavaria. There is absolutely no reason for it to do so. There is a politicisation of the debate on Russian oil and gas that, in my view, is influenced and directed by the United States of America, to the detriment of the European Union and certainly to the detriment of our supply of oil and gas from Russia.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) underlines Conservative Members' difficulty understanding the nature of the European Union—namely, that it is a two-way street? If a gas shortage were looming in Birmingham because the LNG ship from Qatar had not arrived in Milford Haven, gas could be diverted from Bavaria to Birmingham.

Stuart Bell: That is the essence of the interconnector. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South spoke of a common energy policy, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) intervened to ask whether that would result in a united states of Europe. The essence of EU energy policy is that it is up to each member state to go its own way within a supranational EU framework.
	I return to article 176A. It has been quoted many times today, but I make no apologies for repeating it:
	"Such measures"—
	that is, those in article 176A—
	"shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, that nuclear energy, which we debated earlier, was deliberately not included in the European Commission's proposals, because it is up to each member state to decide for itself what it wishes to do on that issue. The point was made that France relies on it a lot and Austria not at all, and that Poland relies on coal. That is the diversity of the European Union; one of the themes of the EU is unity in diversity. We accept diversity and welcome it, and we allow each of the 27 member states to breathe and develop under a supranational umbrella.
	Amendment No. 204 relates to article 2C, and would remove the phrase relating to energy. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, it is one of the Opposition's wrecking amendments. Let us look at article 2C; what is it that the Opposition dislike about shared competence? Do they dislike the internal market, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South rightly pointed out, Lady Thatcher gave us in 1986? Are they opposed to social policy? Are they opposed to economic, social and territorial cohesion? Are they opposed to agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources, or the environment? Are they against consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, the area of freedom, security and justice or common safety concerns in public health matters? All of those are defined in the treaty. Why on earth would one want to remove energy? Do we wish to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world? Do we wish there to be no electricity or petrol for our cars in 10 to 15 years' time? What is it that we are trying to achieve?

Nigel Evans: Does Norway want to cut itself off from the rest of the world? Does Switzerland? That is a useless argument. The treaty is yet another building block in the united states of Europe. Clearly, we are not against working towards a better Europe, or indeed a better United Kingdom, but everything boils down to the fact that we have only ever had one vote on Europe, and that was in 1975. Is it not about time that we had another?

Stuart Bell: I wake up at 4 o'clock in the morning and pray that someone in a debate such as this will mention Norway. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing so. I can assure him that Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are still part of the free trade area that was created many years ago, and they have been operating out of Switzerland from 1972. I invite the Opposition to tell me whether they would like us to go back to those days or to stay within the European Union.
	If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come back to me on that, I shall be happy to hear him. He referred for the second time today to a united states of Europe. There is no one, but no one, who wishes a united states of Europe. If he has the time, he should read the Bruges speech of the Foreign Secretary in December. The hon. Gentleman will see that the Foreign Secretary said that categorically and clearly. No one seeks a united states of Europe. We seek a European Union that is united in its diversity, growing together.
	The Conservatives have a terrible fear that a united states of Europe will somehow happen. It has never happened since 1972. It would never have happened under Sir Edward Heath, it certainly would not have happened under the noble Lady Thatcher, it certainly would not have happened under John Major or Tony Blair, and it will not happen now. I urge the Opposition to let us have a serious debate on Europe. That would be fine. I would welcome it, but we will not get it as long as they have that pettifogging approach to the European Union and their great fear that the bogey man will eat us all up.
	Article 2C deals with competences. What is wrong with energy being part of the shared competences? I can see nothing at all that would take energy out of that category. That brings us back to the points made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. He is right; the amendment would completely wreck article 176A. I ask the Opposition what is wrong with a context that speaks about energy in a spirit of solidarity between member states. What is wrong with the principle of solidarity? No right hon. or hon. Member has been able to say that they dislike the principle of solidarity.
	What is wrong with ensuring a functioning energy market throughout the European Union? What can be wrong with that? No response from the Opposition. What is wrong with energy security? Again, silence on the part of the Opposition.

Richard Shepherd: A gentle question: is it justiciable?

Stuart Bell: The second dream that I have at 4 o'clock in the morning is that someone from the Opposition Benches will ask me a legal question. As a barrister at law and an international lawyer, I dream of such questions coming from the Opposition. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I admire him greatly, for putting that point. All of a sudden the Opposition become barristers, solicitors, lawyers, the European Court of Justice.
	The topic was raised earlier. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton went back to 1972 on a justiciable issue. Every issue is justiciable. Why would it not be? What is wrong with something being justiciable? Where has the rule of law disappeared from the Conservative Benches? What happened to it? It disappeared, like most of the Conservatives' ideology over the past few years. The answer is that everything is justiciable, and why should it not be?

Richard Shepherd: That must mean that the judgment in such cases is beyond the call of the British people. That is an important element. The Court operates procedures that are not commonly understood by the British people. That is why we have argued for a referendum, as did the Government and the Liberal Democrats. It is an extraordinary position.

Stuart Bell: Next time I will bring my wig and my gown, and we can have a proper debate on that issue. What the hon. Gentleman is saying goes to the very heart of his opposition to the European Union. He is saying that the British people do not want to go to the European Court of Justice. The British people have no inclination or desire to do that. It goes to the heart of his approach to the European Union that we want somehow to exclude the European Court of Justice in the interests of a British court. That is at the heart of what he says, but the Conservative party must make up its mind, because it will not be easy to continue saying, "We want to be in—but—". Giscard d'Estaing has been mentioned many times today; in 1967, he said, "Yes, but—" in relation to the French Government. That is the view of the Conservatives on Europe. It is neither sufficient nor acceptable, and the British people will not let the party get away with it.

Richard Shepherd: The words are used so loosely and beyond our understanding, as was so eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) yesterday. Language—the "spirit of solidarity", for instance—is important; all such phrases have a single legal meaning and understanding in the European Court of Justice. When we talk about solidarity or working in a spirit of co-operation, we see them as a looser arrangement. What we are discussing is a legal imposition beyond the call of our people—that is all.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he will remember that at 5 minutes to 10 one evening, I compared his use of the English language to that of Edmund Burke. He reminds me of a phrase of Lyndon Johnson's—that if we all had the same facts, we would all come to the same conclusion. That leads me on to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", a famous line of which is—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can now come back to the issue of energy.

Stuart Bell: Sir Michael, the quote is perfectly relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd):
	"But men may construe things after their fashion,
	Clean from the purpose of the things themselves."
	That is the essence of the Conservative opposition to the energy section of the amended treaty.
	I had got as far as energy security and energy supply, and I asked the Opposition whether they opposed that. I then asked them whether they opposed promoting energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; I presume that they do not. I also asked them whether they opposed the interconnection of energy networks.
	Those who follow energy policy, and certainly the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, will know that at Zeebrugge there is a massive interconnection—the gas comes all the way from Russia. At Zeebrugge, some is sent further into Belgium and to Germany and France—and, of course, to the United Kingdom, but we should not talk too much about that, especially in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South.
	What is wrong with interconnection? Why do we think that someone is going to pinch our gas? It is amazing. The treaty states:
	"Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1."
	What is wrong with a supranational umbrella that tries to give directions to the member states of the European Union—as far down as Bulgaria and Romania, by the way?  [Interruption.] I have a feeling that my hon. Friend might agree with me on that. We need a common energy policy. I agree with my hon. Friend; of course it would be better for there to be harmony in our approach to all the suppliers. What is wrong with that? I cannot imagine.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Germans have been doing quiet deals with the Russians to make sure that the pipelines come across Germany, so that at least they have their hands on the taps? Those countries take a nationalistic view of things and look after themselves. I do not want to promote nationalism between different countries, but let us be realistic. If we want secure energy supplies, we have to take command of that ourselves as a nation state.

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend knows full well that the German border is close to Russia, with Poland in between. As one who has spent some time reading about the downfall of Berlin in 1945, I think that the Germans would be happy to have gas supplies from Russia, and that Russia would be happy to receive their euros in exchange. I assure my hon. Friend that we have full security of supply from Norway, Qatar and Algeria, apart from our own North sea oil coming on stream. There is no problem with our security of supply at the moment, but, as I said in an earlier speech, we must prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. We must prepare for a day when a difficulty with supply may be caused by disruption, prices or outside events. Conflict in some part of the world may affect our energy supply. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) mentioned various particularly unstable parts of the world that supply us with energy.
	We have already dealt with the provision in article 176A on determining the conditions for exploiting energy resources. I imagine that that would cause no difficulty to the Opposition, and that there would be no difficulty over the provision that states:
	"By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein".
	So what is the problem with competence? What is the problem with solidarity? What is the problem with article 176A? Why, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham asked, were these wrecking amendments tabled? The answer is, of course—and there were murmurs from the Opposition Back Benches to this effect—that it was part of the process of wrecking the amending treaty. The artful dodger of politics is trying to undermine the treaty by undermining energy. If the day were to come when we had a Conservative Government with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton in charge of energy policy, the hon. Gentleman would be living with this. It would be in his bible. He would be carrying it around with his pocket wherever he went.
	The Committee should take account of the fact that these are wrecking amendments which have no real significance in the great scheme of things. They reflect again the opposition to the European Union in all its shapes and forms that has developed through the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—I gave him credit for it earlier—and the closing in on themselves of the Britons whom we used to called little Englanders. Once the Conservative party moves away from that and we engage in a genuine debate on the future of Europe, the Conservatives will be the better for it, the Government will be the better for it, and so will the country.

Peter Lilley: I bring the Committee's attention to my interests as declared in the Register. However, I shall draw on neither my experience as director of an oil company nor my experience as an oil analyst in the City, but on my experience as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the lead-up to the single market. At that time, I urged Britain to take the opportunity that we would be offered by the liberalisation that the single market would bring about. I argued that the common market had given a particular advantage to Germany, whose relative strength was in manufactures, and that the common agricultural policy had given a particular advantage to the French, who had great strength in agriculture. It was our turn now, I suggested: we had a relative strength in services and the privatised utilities, and the liberalising measures in the single market should help us to fulfil that.
	Admittedly, in the ensuing 15 years progress has been rather slower than I hoped then, but—along with, I think, the whole of my party—I still believe in the liberalisation of energy markets in Europe. We have no objection to the liberalising provisions that are in the existing treaties and are, to a degree, mirrored in this treaty. We see no point in changing them, and we see no gain in reaffirming or altering them. If we were to stick with existing treaties, we would have all the liberalisation that we would have if we proceeded with this treaty. However, this treaty goes further than that.

David Drew: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while we may have that liberalising agenda—over which some of us have nothing but fears—the French have made it absolutely clear that they will not liberalise their energy markets? That is why they have been so successful.

Peter Lilley: I agree. The one change that this treaty makes is to reduce the liberalisation, not through the clauses that we are currently debating but through the change secured by the French President which removed the pre-eminence of competition policy from the preamble of the original treaties. This treaty lessens the liberalising force that we would have if we stuck with the status quo.
	I want to focus on the new powers, and above all, the new references to security of energy supply. That is to be a shared competence, and has been pointed out, we can legislate only in so far as the European Community chooses not to. Decision making will primarily operate through qualified majority voting, and therefore we will have no veto, except in certain circumstances to which I shall refer later.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about security of energy supply, and there has been much emphasis on the need for us to develop a degree of independence in energy in the longer term. His party—perhaps he himself—privatised our energy sector. Much of it was sold off to foreign companies, so not only do we not have the supplies, but we do not have control of the supplies because they are in the hands of foreign companies. Would it not have been sensible to keep those companies in public ownership in Britain?

Peter Lilley: I am happy to reply to that point because I have some experience relating to it. If a foreign-controlled company acts against the interests of this country, we can intervene and take control of it. I was probably the last Minister in this House ever to nationalise anything—I nationalised all the companies owned by the Iraqis when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991. We retain such powers over companies operating in our country, but would cede some of them to European institutions under this measure. It will give the EU competence to control, plan, influence or ration the supply of energy. That is what it is all about.
	For the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) complained that we in the Conservative party were worrying our little heads unnecessarily, thinking up remote and unpleasant possibilities of what might happen to this country. But thinking about security requires one to think about unpleasant things that may happen. It is a bit rich for the Liberal party, having castigated the Financial Services Authority for not thinking about the remote possibility that Northern Rock might go under, and that there might be a run on a bank, which had not happened for the previous 140 years, to castigate us for thinking about what might go wrong in the sphere of energy. In the past, we have seen the Suez crisis, the OPEC embargo, the Iranian embargo and the Russian interruption of supplies to Ukraine. We know that energy can be used for political means, and can cause insecurity of supply. In such circumstances, it is important to know how to respond, and to have the powers to do so. Such issues are important, and we have to think about what might happen if we transfer authority for such decisions to the mechanism of qualified majority voting, and about how that would affect this country.
	One of my hon. Friends said that we are all in it together, so it is worth pooling our sovereignty, or at least sharing risks, with other countries because we would then all be able to help each other. Logically, it is only worth a country sharing risks with others, and sharing its energy supplies, if those countries face fewer risks than it does, or have more energy supplies. In any other circumstance, one is simply exposing oneself to other countries' risks, and may be sharing one's energy resources with them without gaining anything in return.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but member states do not need to be in the European Union to achieve that end. One reason that wind power is so successful in Denmark is that it has an arrangement with Norway giving it access to Norway's hydro-power when the wind is not blowing in Denmark, and the same is true the other way round. Norway is not in the EU and Denmark is, so the Lisbon treaty is not needed to effect such arrangements.

Peter Lilley: That is true and my hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I was trying to focus on interruption in supply that is politically conceived or perhaps caused by a natural disaster, and whether we should retain our independent power to respond to that emergency or transfer it to collective decision making in the European Community, as the treaty of Lisbon requires.

Patricia Hewitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I shall do so in a moment after making a little further progress, when the right hon. Lady, as a fellow former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, may realise that my arguments require no qualification by her.
	We in this country have the biggest reserve of oil and gas in Europe. We would therefore share something positive with countries that face risks but do not have the same resources to share with us in the event of our needing their help. We have also diversified slightly more than other countries, especially in opening up to achieve 20 per cent. of our gas supplies from Qatar. That will relieve at least some of our dependence on future gas supplies from Russia and central Asia. I do not therefore understand the logical case for us, in our specific circumstances of being the principal oil and gas producer, to share risks and supplies with other countries.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the potential of the then Common Market to take over our oil was one of the key issues of the 1975 referendum? Those in favour of joining gave copious assurances that it would never happen. Yet the treaty explicitly provides for that.

Peter Lilley: I confess that I had forgotten that, although I participated in the referendum. I campaigned ardently for a yes vote, having been persuaded to overcome any reservations by the attractive young lady who ran the Britain in Europe movement, and whom I subsequently married. I must therefore declare the further interest that I have done well out of Europe.

Bernard Jenkin: What is her view now?

Peter Lilley: It has changed considerably—about Europe, though I hope not about me.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, West presented the argument that our reserves are declining and we are therefore losing the advantage that I described. They are, indeed, declining, but we will still have more domestic supply than any other country in Europe for a long time. My arguments will therefore continue to prevail for a long time over those that the right hon. Lady advanced.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and fellow former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for giving way. I have followed his argument with great care, but he simply misrepresents the Lisbon treaty. He talks about our being required, in an emergency, to hand over our supplies. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out some time ago, the relevant article simply provides that, in the case of a severe interruption in supply in some part of the European Union, the Commission may present a proposal and the Council of Ministers—comprising member states' Governments, including the UK Government—may decide to do something about it. If agreement is not reached, action can be taken or not taken, unilaterally or bilaterally.

Peter Lilley: So the right hon. Lady argues that we should give the EU powers because we do not think that they will be used. That is unconvincing.

Kelvin Hopkins: As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that civil servants always insist that when legislation states "may", it means "will".

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right.
	It has been suggested that the treaty contains protections, where QMV will not apply. Article 176A states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources".
	It refers to the "conditions for exploiting", not the allocation of energy resources. That means the licensing terms under which a member state's energy resources will be exploited, the method of allocating licences and so on. The treaty specifically does not state that QMV will not apply to decisions about the allocation of supply. Such decisions will continue to be made by qualified majority voting. Therefore, if circumstances arose similar to when Ted Heath tried to divert supplies away from the rest of Europe, which we had joined only two years earlier, to this country—he could not do so, because British law prevented him and he was not prepared to introduce new laws in the House; the French Government of course did override commercial law and diverted resources—we would not retain the right to allocate our own supplies of energy as we saw fit. That could include sharing them with our neighbours, if that was right and proper and we thought it a generous and helpful thing to do, as well as keeping them if we thought that our needs were greater.
	All decisions about the control of reserves and resources in a federal system are contentious—we are of course talking about a quasi-federal system. We do not have to look at Iraq, whose constitutional development is held up by an inability to make decisions about the allocation of responsibilities between the federal components and the central Government, nor do we have to look at the difficulties in Nigeria to see the same thing. We can look closer to home. Within the United Kingdom, considerable pressures for devolution arose simply over who owns the oil. The question of who has power over energy resources is therefore a contentious one. Do we imagine that if that power is transferred from this place to European institutions, they will not want to use it to the advantage of the whole community, rather than allowing us to retain it and use those resources exclusively as we see fit?
	I urge hon. Members to read the words in the treaty closely. When they do, they are bound to conclude that we should pass the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and, when we get to them, the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and thereby ensure that we do not transfer powers over energy resources, which we have in greater abundance than anyone else in Europe.

Michael Connarty: First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Rayleigh for not supporting him this evening. He was very warm about my speech yesterday, but unfortunately I would describe amendment No. 204 as unnecessary and amendment No. 205 as mischievous, and certainly not constructive.
	The reality is that nothing will really change. That point was well made by the Liberal Front-Bench spokesman. There is already a shared competence, as the Opposition motion that we debated earlier stated. All the provisions that are now in the treaty and that were proposed in the constitution were already in parts of other treaties that we had signed and which were operating. That is the truth. There is no real change; the proposals simply formalise and clarify the current arrangements.
	In effect, there is already shared competence in energy matters. The term is often used to describe areas of law making where the exercise of EU competence does not exclude the exercise of a member state's legislative powers. That has been the arrangement in energy markets for some time. We have already been co-operating and benefiting from solidarity—the fact that we mention the word does not make the position different.
	The speech that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) gave was entirely wrong, because he left out the end of article 176, which says that the choice is allowed not only between different energy resources, but over the general structure of a nation's energy market and energy supply, which means that we will indeed continue to control our energy resources.
	That was the great controversy during the Convention, when there was a proposal—I spoke against it in the House—that would have prevented us as a nation from doing a bilateral deal with Norway. As the chair of the all-party British offshore oil and gas industry group, I was helping the then Minister, Brian Wilson, to negotiate a deal with the Norwegians on the Ormen Lange pipeline, to bring 20 per cent. of this country's gas supplies from Norway. That would have been prevented, had the original proposal in the Convention gone through.

Gavin Strang: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Connarty: I have only one minute left, so I cannot.
	We drove that proposal out and now we have the arrangement that I have described. The Ormen Lange pipeline was launched on 6 October 2007—it was reported that the then Minister for Competitiveness, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), was at the opening.
	Our worry was that an attempt would be made to take the matter further than we were willing to allow, as often happens in negotiations with the EU Commission. Now, however, we have a shared competence named in the treaty. It is also limited in the treaty and it should be supported. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, because it would do nothing except reverse the situation. If we were to decide not to have shared competence, would we do this alone? Would the UK withdraw and somehow run an energy market on its own? That is not possible, acceptable or sensible.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to respond to the debate on the amendments. It was led—pretty gracefully, I thought—by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in his typical fashion. We have also heard—perhaps less enjoyably, but none the less interestingly—about the 4 am dreams of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), and we have been told how the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was seduced, no less, into voting for membership of the European Community back then. I believe that that is what he was implying.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). They are becoming a formidable double act, if they do not mind my saying so. In a series of telling interventions, they got to the core of the choices facing the House tonight. We also heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who put the debate into a wider, international context. He referred to the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee on these matters. Paragraph 162 of its report of 25 November states:
	"We recommend that the Government...continue to encourage its EU partners to take a robust and united approach to dealing with Moscow, in the energy field and beyond."
	That is the unanimous conclusion of all members, of all parties, of the Select Committee, including the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). It therefore seems to be accepted across the House that there is a need for a concerted effort and a united approach on energy policy, not only in Russia but in the wider international sphere.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who brought great wisdom and experience to the debate on the amendment. He talked about the changing nature of the debate, the negotiations on sovereignty and other matters relating to energy policy. He clearly articulated that, under the old arrangements, he campaigned against and would have voted against proposals such as those before us this evening. He said, however, that, because of the changes that we have secured on determining our own energy mix, retaining control of energy resources and ensuring that taxation remains an issue of unanimity, the proposals now have his enthusiastic endorsement.

Peter Bone: I have sat here in the Committee for two days, but I have been unable to speak because of the short length of time allowed for the debates. Will the Minister take this on board and do something about altering next week's business, so that we can have more time to discuss these matters in Committee than is allowed for under this funny motion business?

Jim Murphy: That is not an issue for the debate on the amendments but, as I said earlier in the week during our debate on the business motion, we intend to continue to be flexible when we can. It is important that the hon. Gentleman be given the opportunity to articulate his belief that Britain would be better off out of Europe altogether. That is an argument that deserves to have a greater airing in the House, so that we can debate it in greater detail.

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) just made, to which the Minister replied, is very important. Perhaps we misunderstood, but I thought we had clearly been given to understand that flexibility would be shown and that there would be a change in relation to all the days allotted for these debates, yet we found that the time allocation today was four and a half hours and one and a half hours. We might have misunderstood the position, but it seems clear that the Minister has no intention of changing the timetable. I hope that I am wrong, in the interests of conciliation. We really must have some kind of response to the point that my hon. Friend has raised, in relation to every single day.

Sylvia Heal: That is not a point of order for the Chair and it is certainly outside the scope of our debate on the amendments currently before the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that there may be other means, arranged by the business managers, whereby that matter could be discussed.

Jim Murphy: These amendments would exclude the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that define the competence on energy from having any effect in UK law. The Lisbon treaty includes energy in the list of areas of shared competences. Since Maastricht, the EU has had competence over energy, which is what enables the EU to enter into agreements with other countries—for example, the treaty establishing the energy community, which expands the EU single market in energy to the states of south-east Europe.
	Article 2C of the Lisbon treaty defines the Union's competences, including energy as a shared competence, which the lead amendment is designed to remove. The treaty explicitly states that competences not conferred on the EU remain with member states, so it provides greater clarity than before.
	Article 176, the target of some of the amendments, sets out the EU's competence for energy. Removing that article would prevent the UK from implementing any actions agreed under the new legal base. The whole purpose of setting out the EU's competence in energy is to clarify for the first time that the EU can do so and make it easier for it to do so. The appearance of a separate energy article in the Lisbon treaty reflects the growing importance of EU action to help to achieve the UK's energy and climate change priorities. This new article will help to ensure that policies on energy markets, energy security and energy efficiency are coherent and mutually reinforcing. That is vital in order successfully to drive the transition to a high-growth, low-carbon economy in Europe. This dedicated legal base helps to achieve that for the first time.
	The new article also strikes the right balance in preserving the rights of member states to control their own energy resources. We sought safeguards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned, and achieved them. New article 176A—old article 147—states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister confirm my point that qualified majority voting would still apply to decisions about the allocation of supplies of resources throughout the community?

Jim Murphy: The point about QMV in energy is that the new article should make it easier to deliver the effective EU energy-efficiency policies that we all seek to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke earlier about the fact that France and Italy have not yet achieved liberalisation of their energy markets, yet 20 million of our own citizens enjoy the services of French and German energy companies. The challenge, of course, and the imponderable question, is this: if we were to remove EU competence for energy, how could we achieve that type of market access and liberalisation of the market seen in France and Germany, which all political parties claim to want to achieve?

Bernard Jenkin: With the greatest respect, the Minister did not answer yes or no to a very plain yes or no question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), so let me try putting it in a different way. The Minister cites paragraph 2 of article 176A, but will he assure the House that under no circumstances could the European Union vote by qualified majority voting on the allocation of a member state's energy resources? Will he give us that assurance?

Jim Murphy: Article 176 is very clear. It states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".

Bernard Jenkin: Allocation.

Jim Murphy: It is very clear indeed.

William Cash: The Minister omitted the following words, which go to the heart of the point I raised with the Secretary of State:
	"without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c)."
	That takes us back to the arrangements for the approximation of laws and the internal market. Therefore, the Minister ought to be more explicit in his explanation, because he is fundamentally misconstruing the position.

Jim Murphy: I would never seek to do such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly, in the hon. Gentleman's presence. It is clear that nothing in the treaty affects the allocation of energy reserves or stocks. The new article does, however, strike the right balance in preserving the rights of member states. The Opposition have said that they support the principle of EU co-operation on energy, but removing all EU competence over energy, as amendment No. 33 would, would prevent the UK from giving effect to any agreement we reach with EU partners.
	The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about the inclusion in a legally binding protocol of undistorted competition. President Sarkozy has acknowledged that that is symbolic rather than substance and— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rayleigh might scoff at President Sarkozy; that is his business, not mine. I do not know whether he would also scoff at the Law Society's guide to the Lisbon treaty, published only yesterday, which states of the protocol on competition:
	"This does not change the current legal position."
	That is made clear by no less a body than the Law Society—of the United Kingdom, not of France.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked why we could not be just like Norway or Switzerland—and, if he was to complete the list, like Liechtenstein, which is the third great nation in that triumvirate. Norway is not in the EU; some Opposition Members realise that, and it is what they celebrate about the country. However, it still has to apply all EU energy acquis in full. So if we were to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of being like Norway, we would have—lock, stock and barrel—every EU energy policy, but with no influence over or say in the policy.
	Opposition Members have sought to criticise the principle of solidarity. That principle was first established in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty.

Richard Shepherd: indicated assent.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is fair enough to acknowledge that. Many Conservative Members now repudiate that treaty and wish they had not voted for it, judging by their comments this evening. Many Members of the Labour party and of other Opposition parties recognise, however, that solidarity in energy policy is important. The Conservative Opposition castigate that solidarity, but it is celebrated on the Labour Benches because it is crucial. As article 176 of the Lisbon treaty states, when there is a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster, such solidarity is a part of Community feeling, a part of human civilisation and a part of internationalism. It is a key aspect of the concept of solidarity that we stand by those who experience terrorist attack or natural or man-made disaster. Labour Members believe in the principle of solidarity; in times of danger or disaster, we are stronger together and weaker if isolated.

Richard Shepherd: Of course we believe in a generalised sense of solidarity. The Minister gave a good description of that; as his illustrations made clear, it is to do with sympathy and common humanity. What we are discussing now, however, is a legal system. That is the distinction.

Jim Murphy: What I am talking about is structured solidarity that ensures that the EU can provide support at a time of terrorist attack or man-made or natural disaster. The fact is that we can also benefit from this EU solidarity and, in principle, we support it.

Martin Horwood: If the Minister wants a concrete example of the expression of solidarity, he has only to look to what happened in Gloucestershire last summer. The floods resulted in an application to the European solidarity fund. It was supported by local Conservative Members as well as others. That kind of practical application would be prevented if the concept of solidarity were removed from these treaties.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right.
	The Opposition amendment invites the House to believe that every Government in Europe, left and right, cheered on by every Opposition in Europe apart from this one, have knowingly and voluntarily entered into a European conspiracy within a fiendish French plot that will bring gas rationing and shortages to Birmingham. That is clearly not the case, and I ask the House to reject the amendments that have been tabled.

Mark Francois: I have three minutes in which to speak, so may I briefly make a point about time? We have only one and half hours to debate amendments because of the Government's business motion. Again, a number of hon. Members rose to their feet at the conclusion of the allocated time as they had not been able to speak. We did not manage to reach the second group of amendments, so we cannot vote on amendment No. 142. That is a shame, because I was minded to support it and to ask my hon. Friends to do the same. Again, the promise of line-by-line scrutiny has not been adhered to.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), said that he did not always agree with our Back Benchers. We might not have agreed with the Liberal Democrat Back Benchers, had any of them bothered to turn up for the debate. He said that he did not agree with our amendments. We might not have agreed with his amendments, had the Liberals bothered to table any on this subject. The only amendment they keep trying to table, which has been repeatedly ruled out of order, is one on an in/out referendum. They do so because they are fundamentally split on what to do about a referendum on the EU constitution.
	Let me turn to the Government's position. Our amendment is largely based on their original negotiating position. The powers that we are attempting to remove from the treaty are exactly the same ones they attempted to oppose and then gave in on. Their own amendment tabled by the Minister's predecessor stated:
	"This provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty e.g. single market, environment. In addition, we have detailed concerns on the text, which we consider may have the unintended effect of changing the boundaries of EU competence and the types of measure which will be subject to unanimity."
	As the Government were too weak to insist on that, we are attempting to do what they should have done in the first place. That is the basis of our position. They accuse us of exaggerating, when all we are trying to do is to keep them honest in the first place. On that basis, and because the Minister has failed to answer the question all the way through, we are not satisfied, so I seek to test the will of the Committee on amendment No. 204.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 351.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in the Committee, The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Khan.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 4, 5, 6 and 7 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Companies

That the draft Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
	That the draft Small Companies and Groups (Accounts and Directors' Report) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
	That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment) (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Corporation Tax

That the draft Insurance Business Transfer Schemes (Amendment of Corporation Tax Acts) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 4th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Jacqui Smith relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, and shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Hazel Blears relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.— [Mr. Khan.]

TRAVELLING COMMUNITY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Khan.]

Brian H Donohoe: I have been campaigning on the issue of the travelling community since I was elected in 1992, with limited success. I have tried to deal with and resolve the problems that affect the travelling people in my constituency and, I believe, across the whole country. When I came to this House I had a romantic view of travelling people; I believed that the Gypsy population was made up of good, God-fearing people who listened to and understood the law, and who carried out their duties within it. Over the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, my opinion has been substantially eroded. Those people have become a threat to the community, and the powers-that-be seem powerless to intervene effectively. As individual MPs, we face a brick wall while the problem escalates by the year.

Julie Morgan: I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that most of the difficulties between Gypsies, Travellers and the settled community in the UK are caused by the lack of official sites and stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers? Does he agree that the relationships would be much better if there were sufficient places for them to stop?

Brian H Donohoe: I know that the hon. Lady spends a tremendous amount of time advocating that cause, and I applaud her for that. The difficulty is that in my constituency we have two of those camps, yet I still find myself faced with illegal tippers and the other problems that come along with the Travellers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Brian H Donohoe: I shall give way two or three times, but time is obviously against me.

Jim Sheridan: In my experience, the problem is that when we provide camps for travelling people or Gypsies, they then trash the camps. If there is a camp they have to live in it, but they want to travel throughout the country. The legislation means that if a camp is provided, they have to go to it. In my experience, they trash the camp so that they can go wherever they want in the community.

Brian H Donohoe: I understand that problem; I have seen it in the sites that I have visited.
	There is a perception that dealing with the travelling community is a devolved issue, and obviously I represent a Scottish constituency. However, we require multi-agency solutions. The Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and all sorts of UK-wide agencies are involved. I shall address that point later.
	It is clear that we need a debate. We need a rounded discussion, which must involve a review of the legislation in England and Wales and in Scotland in light of all the barriers. We will need cross-party support for such a review. On the basis of my experience and that of other hon. Members from all parties, it is clear that the issue raises its head across the whole of the UK.

Martin Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Brian H Donohoe: I shall make another point and come back to my hon. Friend.
	In addition, an attempt has been made to pass legislation to ban bogus doorstep salesmen, a substantial percentage of whom are Travellers. The police have told me that, and I have the same information from the police force's central computers. It is clear that crime and travelling people are connected. I sometimes have as many as 50 or 60 caravans in my constituency at a time, and I know that crime problems are correlated with the arrival of Travellers. That is unfortunate, but it is the case.
	I have also identified other problems that I am sure are familiar to other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) has mentioned litter already, but another problem is the dumping of waste. For example, the local authority in my area gave Travellers Portaloos, but they were dumped in the skips that the authority had supplied for their rubbish and set alight. That is the sort of person that we are dealing with: I know that there are some good ones among them, but that story is typical of our experiences with them.
	Other problems include people on the beach park at Irvine being intimidated while out running or walking their dogs, and being told that they have no right to be there. Constituents of mine have been shot at by the travelling people, and the House would find it hard to believe the sort of debris—from building work being undertaken on their behalf—that has been left when Travellers leave a camp. Also, Travellers are guilty of selling items without having a trading licence, and we have sometimes found that their caravans have been illegally imported, with no duty paid.

Martin Salter: My hon. Friend is talking about the need for more legislation, and I do not disagree, but does he accept that it would be refreshing if the police used the powers already on the statute book? The House has passed legislation to deal with antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and harassment, but many local communities feel that there is one law for Travellers and another for them. Does my hon. Friend know why that should be?

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend is entitled to ask that question, and it is part of the problem that has been identified to me. Like him, I believe that much of it can be dealt with under the existing law, and later in my speech I shall show that the relevant agencies do not seem to be behaving in a sufficiently proactive way.
	Some people suggest that the Traveller community is outside society as we know it. That is very worrying, as people have even suggested to me that vigilante groups should be set up. That would set a very dangerous precedent in Ayrshire: I would not want to go down that road, or recommend it to anyone at all.
	Traveller children are kept out of school, and as a result run riot on quad bikes—and I have already mentioned the fearsome dogs in the camps. There is wanton vandalism to property: when the Travellers are in town they breach all the security put in place around empty factories, for example, with the result that the factories are trashed and millions of pounds-worth of damage is done. They also lift all the stones put down to stop them camping, and then claim that that just happened by accident.

Rosie Cooper: Does my hon. Friend agree that local people see Travellers as outside the social norm? In my constituency, local Conservatives have told people that there is to be a campsite on their doorstep, when in fact no such site has ever been suggested. Travellers are guilty of real antisocial behaviour, but the actions of local Conservatives are an example of that being exploited for purely political gain. The fact that there are no Conservative Members on the Opposition Benches for this debate proves that they do not care about what is a real issue for all our people.

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct, and I support most of what she says. There is another side to the equation, however, and it may be relevant to her intervention. Since I have been in the House, I have tried to get a representative of the Traveller community to meetings that I have set up. I have engaged with the local authority to get someone from that community to explain what we have got wrong and how we can correct that for the good ones that we know exist. Not one person north of the border can be identified as being from an organisation in any way connected to travelling people, which leads me to suggest that something is wrong.
	Let me draw a parallel: I am a close supporter of the Showmen's Guild, and I spoke at its 100th anniversary lunch. It has a structure, and people can go and speak to its representatives. We can tell them if there are problems with loud music or other issues, and we can talk to them about where they are and where they will be. They listen, there is reasonable rational debate, and we reach a solution to any problem. I cannot think of any comparable body north of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) recently held a meeting in the House that was attended by a travelling person. I talked to her to find out whether she had a contact north of the border, and she said that there was none. I am up against it in that respect. The authorities argue that they, too, are powerless.

David Taylor: I would go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) did: the issue is not just the unwillingness or reluctance of the police to use their powers, but co-ordination. That is why this Friday I am co-ordinating a Travellers round table in Coalville—Leicestershire is an area with chronic Traveller problems—at which the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union, landowners, the local authorities and the police can see whether there is a way ahead, so that we can co-ordinate, work together and co-operate better in dealing with problems as they occur. At the moment, co-ordination is spasmodic and inchoate.

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I will come to that point later. I am conscious of the time, and I would appreciate it if there were no more interventions; otherwise, the Minister will have no chance to reply.
	As part of my campaign I have held two summits in recent years, in which I worked closely with my two local authorities, their chief executives, trading standards officers, liaison officers, the police, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. I have had meetings to attempt to resolve the issues, as we—including my constituents—see them, and I have not had the satisfaction of finding a solution to the problem. The local authority says that it is powerless to act because of how the law is structured. Unless there is a change to both Scottish law and the law in England and Wales, we will never eradicate the problem, which affects so many people across the country.
	Scottish law does not afford councils powers to deal with trespassers, and councils cannot use protective or regulatory powers to deal with offenders. One of my local authorities told me:
	"we have no easy way of physically moving offending Travelling People on from our land without the sanction of a court order. To get such an order we require evidence".
	The issue of the quality and quantity of such evidence, and how practical it is to gather it, is problematic. The chief legal officer of North Ayrshire council says that
	"the way in which Eviction Orders are granted would in my view require changes in primary legislation."
	All that relates only to council land. We then come to private land, which is even more problematic for those affected. As I said earlier, factories are trashed, in addition to everything else. I am asking for a review of English and Welsh legislation, as that might act as a catalyst for proposals on the subject north of the border.
	There is no doubt that some Travellers are decent, law-abiding people. I have come across them, and they have my strong support for their right to go about their business. However, my constituency seems to be a magnet for what can only be described as convoys of cowboys. What really disturbs me is that they just do not listen to reason. There is no law that they will not break to go about their business. Worse, they prey on the gullible and the elderly in our society. One case came to my attention in which a man was taken to the bank and withdrew £102,000 to install a new roan pipe in his property. The people involved were charged, but that is an example of the situation that we face.
	The size of Britain's Traveller population is estimated to be around 300,000, with about 200,000 in settled housing. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation show that in 2006 there were 16,300-odd caravans, of which 6,500 were on local authority sites, almost 6,000 on authorised private sites, 2,250 on unauthorised developments and just under 2,000 on unauthorised encampments. In England, part of the problem that has been identified to me are the marauding youngsters. Because they are not in school, they can commit offences and breach the peace. If they were at school, there would be fewer problems.
	In conclusion, I ask the Minister to take note of the questions that I am about to ask. If he cannot answer them tonight, perhaps he will do so at some other time. Can he tell me of any proposals to undertake another initiative to deal with the problem that I have described? As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I, with my colleagues, joined the police and other agencies on Operation Mermaid, which was designed to take all the cowboys off our roads and buses. That was an extremely successful operation. Can a similar initiative be undertaken in respect of travelling people? Perhaps the Minister could engineer something along those lines.
	Does the Minister agree that there is overwhelming evidence of the problems that I have outlined? He must be aware of that. Will he consult the relevant officials and review the need for more funding to be given to third parties, such as dedicated police officers in all police forces, so that they can do the necessary work? Part of the problem is that police forces are underfunded, and do not have funding specifically allocated to deal with this matter.
	Will the Minister consider a change in the legislation, which is clearly required both south and north of the border? Legislation could and should be in force to deal with the unsolicited doorstep sales that Travellers are involved in. Finally, as a result of the debate, and in view of the amount of interest that has been shown, will the Minister consider meeting me, and some of the other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to come to the House this evening and listen to the debate?

Iain Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) on securing the debate. I do not think I have ever seen such a well attended end-of-sitting Adjournment debate. That shows the importance of the issue.
	I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) that as parliamentarians we have an obligation in the manner in which we discuss the matter, and that some sort of political consensus across the House on our approach is needed.
	Let me start at the end, as it were, with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire for a meeting. I am more than happy to meet him and other interested hon. Members to discuss the issue, and I look forward to doing that soon. However, as he mentioned, responsibility and accountability for Gypsy and Traveller issues are devolved to the Scottish Government. Although I can provide information on where the position in Scotland differs from that in England, I cannot comment specifically on the Scottish Government's behalf, and I would not want to do so. I understand that my hon. Friend has communicated with and met members of the Scottish Executive.
	Sadly, my hon. Friend mentioned the important matter of antisocial behaviour. I want to be clear. Nobody is above or exempt from the law. The law applies to Gypsies and Travellers as it does to the settled community. Every community—I stress, every community in this country, regardless of whether they are settled, Travellers or any other community—needs to be confident that action will be taken by the relevant authorities, whether that is the police, trading standards, other parts of the local authority or other agencies, against the small minority in society who do not abide by the law. I shall come back to the point about publishing guidance on antisocial behaviour.
	At the heart of the problems described by my hon. Friend is the shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers; that is forcing them on to unauthorised sites, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned. I suggest that the problem causes tension within the Traveller community and between Travellers and the settled communities. Local authorities are forced to spend resources dealing with the problems of unauthorised encampments; that often involves displacing the problem from one area to the next.
	The Government believe that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent place to live. That is why housing remains high on the political agenda, if not at the top of it, and why we are committed to increasing the supply and quality of affordable housing. Furthermore, I am currently serving on the Committee stage of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, which establishes the Homes and Communities Agency and improves security of tenure for Gypsy and Traveller communities.
	Increased authorised site provision, coupled with the effective use of enforcement powers and a joined-up approach between the various organisations, is vital to addressing the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire and others tonight. I believe strongly that there are incentives for everyone—Gypsies and Travellers, local authorities and the settled community—to increase the amount of authorised site provision. That will reduce unauthorised camping and the tensions that that can cause with the settled community. It will also reduce the need for—and cost of—enforcement action, and help tackle the serious social exclusion experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, by helping to improve health and education outcomes. Everybody benefits when more authorised sites are provided.
	I mentioned that site provision will reduce the amount of resources that authorities spend on costly enforcement action. The Commission for Racial Equality estimates that at about £18 million a year, and the Audit Commission referred to the issue in relation to one local authority as a "wasteful use of resources". Site provision also makes it quicker and easier to take enforcement action where unauthorised camping does take place. To answer directly the point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), there is a range of powers available to landowners, local authorities and the police to deal with unauthorised encampments. Those range from common law powers and civil procedures in the county court, to the powers of local authorities and the police to direct trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances.
	Police powers to direct trespassers to leave land will often be the quickest policy, as they can be used without reference to the courts. However, there are other things that authorities and the police can do to speed up the process, including having protocols in place to deal with cases of unauthorised sites. However, I come back to the central point of my argument: enforcement action will always be quicker and more effective where appropriate authorised sites are available. I suggest that that should be the priority for local authorities.
	Our task group on site provision and enforcement—chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, a former chief executive of the Local Government Association—has reviewed the operation of enforcement powers and taken evidence from local authorities and others involved in using the powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire asked whether we need more legislation. In its final report, "The Road Ahead" published in December, the group concluded that the scope and nature of existing enforcement powers are sufficient, but that considerable improvements could be made to the way in which they are used. We are committed to ensuring that those improvements are made.
	We have already provided guidance for local authorities and others on unauthorised encampments and developments. It sets out the powers available, and provides practical advice on their use. We have also published guidance on managing unauthorised camping which emphasises the need for a joined-up approach between the different organisations with an interest. I understand that the Scottish Government have produced similar guidance. I mentioned my hon. Friend's point about published guidance on antisocial behaviour. In the spring we will be publishing guidance on tackling antisocial behaviour as it relates to Gypsies and Travellers. I hope that he finds that reassuring.
	In England, in order to achieve the increase in accommodation that we seek, we have established a new framework for site provision. Local authorities are required by the Housing Act 2004 to undertake accommodation needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers in the same way as they do for the rest of the community. All those assessments should have been completed by now.
	Regional assemblies are at various stages in the process of revising their regional spatial strategies to specify the number of pitches that each local authority will be expected to deliver. Authorities will then need to identify sites to deliver those pitches in their development plan documents. I understand that the Scottish Government have asked local authorities to consider the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in their local housing strategies.
	To back up the new framework in England, we have increased the resources available for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Since 2006 we have spent £33.6 million, which will deliver an additional 284 pitches and refurbish 111 sites. In the last few weeks, I have announced that we will make a further £97 million available for new sites, and the refurbishment of existing sites, between 2008 and 2011.

Brian H Donohoe: When we originally set up the camps in my constituency, the condition was that when a local authority agreed to set up a camp it was given more powers to move on illegal Travellers who might turn up in the area. Is that likely to feature in the legislation to which the Minister has referred?

Iain Wright: As I said earlier, the task group chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe judged that the current enforcement procedures were adequate but were not being complied with effectively enough. I must deal with that; I think that the existing framework is sufficient, but that we must push local authorities and others to ensure that it is implemented as much as possible.
	I was talking about additional funding, which my hon. Friend raised in his excellent speech. I believe that the Scottish Government have also made grant available.
	The task group that I mentioned concluded that our policy for the provision of sites was sound, but that progress in delivering new sites was slow. It recommended that where there was an established need for new Gypsy and Traveller sites, local authorities should begin work on preparing a site allocations development plan document now.
	The new framework that we have established is crucial to making progress on site provision in England. Coupled with effective enforcement action—which I fully appreciate is necessary—and a joined-up approach to the issues, an increase in site provision will help to create strong, cohesive communities. Only by significantly increasing the number of authorised sites will we ensure that all parts of the community have a decent place to live. That will reduce the tensions that unauthorised sites can cause with the settled community. It will also reduce the need for, and cost of, enforcement action, and will help to make it easier to use enforcement powers, as well as improving the life outcomes of the most socially excluded group in society.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing a debate on a very important issue. I thank him for giving me an opportunity to explain why the provision of authorised sites is so important, and why it should be seen in the policy context of affordable and appropriate accommodation for all. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter on other occasions, and I should be pleased to meet my hon. Friend and others for that purpose.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eight o' clock.